Dataset Information

Semi-parametric estimates of population accuracy and bias of predictions of breeding values and future phenotypes using the LR method.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cross-validation tools are used increasingly to validate and compare genetic evaluation methods but analytical properties of cross-validation methods are rarely described. There is also a lack of cross-validation tools for complex problems such as prediction of indirect effects (e.g. maternal effects) or for breeding schemes with small progeny group sizes.

Results

We derive the expected value of several quadratic forms by comparing genetic evaluations including "partial" and "whole" data. We propose statistics that compare genetic evaluations including "partial" and "whole" data based on differences in means, covariance, and correlation, and term the use of these statistics "method LR" (from linear regression). Contrary to common belief, the regression of true on estimated breeding values is (on expectation) lower than 1 for small or related validation sets, due to family structures. For validation sets that are sufficiently large, we show that these statistics yield estimators of bias, slope or dispersion, and population accuracy for estimated breeding values. Similar results hold for prediction of future phenotypes although we show that estimates of bias, slope or dispersion using prediction of future phenotypes are sensitive to incorrect heritabilities or precorrection for fixed effects. We present an example for a set of 2111 Brahman beef cattle for which, in repeated partitioning of the data into training and validation sets, there is very good agreement of statistics of method LR with prediction of future phenotypes.

Conclusions

Analytical properties of cross-validation measures are presented. We present a new method named LR for cross-validation that is automatic, easy to use, and which yields the quantities of interest. The method compares predictions based on partial and whole data, which results in estimates of accuracy and biases. Prediction of observed records may yield biased results due to precorrection or use of incorrect heritabilities.

SUBMITTER: Legarra A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6219059 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Semi-parametric estimates of population accuracy and bias of predictions of breeding values and future phenotypes using the LR method.

Legarra Andres A Reverter Antonio A

Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE 20181106 1

<h4>Background</h4>Cross-validation tools are used increasingly to validate and compare genetic evaluation methods but analytical properties of cross-validation methods are rarely described. There is also a lack of cross-validation tools for complex problems such as prediction of indirect effects (e.g. maternal effects) or for breeding schemes with small progeny group sizes.<h4>Results</h4>We derive the expected value of several quadratic forms by comparing genetic evaluations including "partial ...[more]

PMID: 30400768

Similar Datasets

Project description:Genomic selection has been widely implemented in dairy cattle breeding when the aim is to improve performance of purebred animals. In pigs, however, the final product is a crossbred animal. This may affect the efficiency of methods that are currently implemented for dairy cattle. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of predicted breeding values in crossbred pigs using purebred genomic and phenotypic data. A second objective was to compare the predictive ability of SNPs when training is done in either single or multiple populations for four traits: age at first insemination (AFI); total number of piglets born (TNB); litter birth weight (LBW); and litter variation (LVR). We performed marker-based and pedigree-based predictions. Within-population predictions for the four traits ranged from 0.21 to 0.72. Multi-population prediction yielded accuracies ranging from 0.18 to 0.67. Predictions across purebred populations as well as predicting genetic merit of crossbreds from their purebred parental lines for AFI performed poorly (not significantly different from zero). In contrast, accuracies of across-population predictions and accuracies of purebred to crossbred predictions for LBW and LVR ranged from 0.08 to 0.31 and 0.11 to 0.31, respectively. Accuracy for TNB was zero for across-population prediction, whereas for purebred to crossbred prediction it ranged from 0.08 to 0.22. In general, marker-based outperformed pedigree-based prediction across populations and traits. However, in some cases pedigree-based prediction performed similarly or outperformed marker-based prediction. There was predictive ability when purebred populations were used to predict crossbred genetic merit using an additive model in the populations studied. AFI was the only exception, indicating that predictive ability depends largely on the genetic correlation between PB and CB performance, which was 0.31 for AFI. Multi-population prediction was no better than within-population prediction for the purebred validation set. Accuracy of prediction was very trait-dependent.

Project description:Genomic selection has the potential to increase genetic progress. Genotype imputation of high-density single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotypes can improve the cost efficiency of genomic breeding value (GEBV) prediction for pig breeding. Consequently, the objectives of this work were to: (1) estimate accuracy of genomic evaluation and GEBV for three traits in a Yorkshire population and (2) quantify the loss of accuracy of genomic evaluation and GEBV when genotypes were imputed under two scenarios: a high-cost, high-accuracy scenario in which only selection candidates were imputed from a low-density platform and a low-cost, low-accuracy scenario in which all animals were imputed using a small reference panel of haplotypes. Phenotypes and genotypes obtained with the PorcineSNP60 BeadChip were available for 983 Yorkshire boars. Genotypes of selection candidates were masked and imputed using tagSNP in the GeneSeek Genomic Profiler (10K). Imputation was performed with BEAGLE using 128 or 1800 haplotypes as reference panels. GEBV were obtained through an animal-centric ridge regression model using de-regressed breeding values as response variables. Accuracy of genomic evaluation was estimated as the correlation between estimated breeding values and GEBV in a 10-fold cross validation design. Accuracy of genomic evaluation using observed genotypes was high for all traits (0.65-0.68). Using genotypes imputed from a large reference panel (accuracy: R(2) = 0.95) for genomic evaluation did not significantly decrease accuracy, whereas a scenario with genotypes imputed from a small reference panel (R(2) = 0.88) did show a significant decrease in accuracy. Genomic evaluation based on imputed genotypes in selection candidates can be implemented at a fraction of the cost of a genomic evaluation using observed genotypes and still yield virtually the same accuracy. On the other side, using a very small reference panel of haplotypes to impute training animals and candidates for selection results in lower accuracy of genomic evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundImproving feedlot performance, carcase weight and quality is a primary goal of the beef industry worldwide. Here, we used data from 3408 Australian Angus steers from seven years of birth (YOB) cohorts (2011-2017) with a minimal level of sire linkage and that were genotyped for 45,152 SNPs. Phenotypic records included two feedlot and five carcase traits, namely average daily gain (ADG), average daily dry matter intake (DMI), carcase weight (CWT), carcase eye muscle area (EMA), carcase Meat Standard Australia marbling score (MBL), carcase ossification score (OSS) and carcase subcutaneous rib fat depth (RIB). Using a 7-way cross-validation based on YOB cohorts, we tested the quality of genomic predictions using the linear regression (LR) method compared to the traditional method (Pearson's correlation between the genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) and its associated adjusted phenotype divided by the square root of heritability); explored the factors, such as heritability, validation cohort, and phenotype that affect estimates of accuracy, bias, and dispersion calculated with the LR method; and suggested a novel interpretation for translating differences in accuracy into phenotypic differences, based on GEBV quartiles (Q1Q4).ResultsHeritability (h2) estimates were generally moderate to high (from 0.29 for ADG to 0.53 for CWT). We found a strong correlation (0.73, P-value < 0.001) between accuracies using the traditional method and those using the LR method, although the LR method was less affected by random variation within and across years and showed a better ability to discriminate between extreme GEBV quartiles. We confirmed that bias of GEBV was not significantly affected by h2, validation cohort or trait. Similarly, validation cohort was not a significant source of variation for any of the GEBV quality metrics. Finally, we observed that the phenotypic differences were larger for higher accuracies.ConclusionsOur estimates of h2 and GEBV quality metrics suggest a potential for accurate genomic selection of Australian Angus for feedlot performance and carcase traits. In addition, the Q1Q4 measure presented here easily translates into possible gains of genomic selection in terms of phenotypic differences and thus provides a more tangible output for commercial beef cattle producers.

Project description:BackgroundMetabolomics measures an intermediate stage between genotype and phenotype, and may therefore be useful for breeding. Our objectives were to investigate genetic parameters and accuracies of predicted breeding values for malting quality (MQ) traits when integrating both genomic and metabolomic information. In total, 2430 plots of 562 malting spring barley lines from three years and two locations were included. Five MQ traits were measured in wort produced from each plot. Metabolomic features used were 24,018 nuclear magnetic resonance intensities measured on each wort sample. Methods for statistical analyses were genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and metabolomic-genomic best linear unbiased prediction (MGBLUP). Accuracies of predicted breeding values were compared using two cross-validation strategies: leave-one-year-out (LOYO) and leave-one-line-out (LOLO), and the increase in accuracy from the successive inclusion of first, metabolomic data on the lines in the validation population (VP), and second, both metabolomic data and phenotypes on the lines in the VP, was investigated using the linear regression (LR) method.ResultsFor all traits, we saw that the metabolome-mediated heritability was substantial. Cross-validation results showed that, in general, prediction accuracies from MGBLUP and GBLUP were similar when phenotypes and metabolomic data were recorded on the same plots. Results from the LR method showed that for all traits, except one, accuracy of MGBLUP increased when including metabolomic data on the lines of the VP, and further increased when including also phenotypes. However, in general the increase in accuracy of MGBLUP when including both metabolomic data and phenotypes on lines of the VP was similar to the increase in accuracy of GBLUP when including phenotypes on the lines of the VP. Therefore, we found that, when metabolomic data were included on the lines of the VP, accuracies substantially increased for lines without phenotypic records, but they did not increase much when phenotypes were already known.ConclusionsMGBLUP is a useful approach to combine phenotypic, genomic and metabolomic data for predicting breeding values for MQ traits. We believe that our results have significant implications for practical breeding of barley and potentially many other species.

Dataset Information

Semi-parametric estimates of population accuracy and bias of predictions of breeding values and future phenotypes using the LR method.

Background

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Semi-parametric estimates of population accuracy and bias of predictions of breeding values and future phenotypes using the LR method.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets