Different models of genetic variation and their effect on genomic evaluation

Genetics Selection Evolution

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2011, Pages

  Clark, Samuel A ^a,b   Hickey, John M ^a   Van Der Werf, Julius H J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND   (Australia)

^b Sheep CRC   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; BAYESIAN ANALYSIS; GENETIC MARKER; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOMICS; LIFE HISTORY TRAIT; NATURAL SELECTION; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY;

ANIMALIA;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BREEDING; GENE LINKAGE DISEQUILIBRIUM; GENETIC SELECTION; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENETICS; GENOME; PEDIGREE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; STATISTICS;

ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; BREEDING; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME; LINKAGE DISEQUILIBRIUM; MODELS, GENETIC; PEDIGREE; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI; SELECTION, GENETIC;

EID: 80052286471     PISSN: 0999193X     EISSN: 12979686     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1297-9686-43-18     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME, Genetics 2001 157 1819 1829 11290733 (Pubitemid 32298846)
2. The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle. Habier D, Tetens J, Seefried FR, Lichtner P, Thaller G, Genet Sel Evol 2010 42 5 10.1186/1297-9686-42-5 20170500
3. Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters. Muir WM, J Anim Breed Genet 2007 124 342 355 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00700.x 18076471 (Pubitemid 350231126)
4. Can the same genetic markers be used in multiple breeds? Goddard ME, Hayes BJ, McPartlan H, Chamberlain AJ, Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production: August 13-18, 2006, Brazil. CD-ROM communication no. 22-16
5. Personal genomes: the case of the missing heritability. Maher B, Nature 2008 456 18 21 18987709
6. Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Yang J, Benyamin B, McEvoy BP, Gordon SD, Henders AK, Nyholt DR, Madden PA, Heath AC, Martin NG, Montgomery GW, Goddard ME, Visscher PM, Nature Genetics 2010 42 565 571 10.1038/ng.608 20562875
7. Multiple rare variants in different genes account for multifactorial inherited susceptibility to colorectal adenomas. Fearnhead NS, Wilding JL, Winney B, Tonks S, Bartlett S, Bicknell DC, Tomlinson IP, Mortensen NJ, Bodmer WF, Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 2004 101 15992 15997 10.1073/pnas.0407187101 15520370 (Pubitemid 39507915)
8. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of mendelian inheritance. Fisher RA, Trans R Soc Edin 1918 52 399 433
9. The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM, Genetics 2007 177 2389 2397 18073436 (Pubitemid 350277013)
10. Mixed model methodology under genetic models with a small number of additive and non-additive loci. Maki-Tanila A, Kennedy BW, Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production: Lincoln 1986 443 448
11. Fast and flexible simulation of DNA sequence data. Chen GK, Marjoram P, Wall JD, Genome Res 2009 19 136 142 19029539
12. High-resolution haplotype block structure in the cattle genome. Villa-Angulo R, Matukumalli LK, Gill CA, Choi J, Van Tassell CP, Grefenstette JJ, BMC Genetics 2009 10 19 19393054
13. AlphaBayes: user manual. Hickey JM, Tier B, UNE, Australia 2009
14. Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges. Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AC, Goddard ME, J Dairy Sci 2009 92 433 443 10.3168/jds.2008-1646 19164653
15. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. VanRaden PM, J Dairy Sci 2008 91 4414 4423 10.3168/jds.2007-0980 18946147
16. ASReml User Guide Release 3.0. Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R, Hemel Hempstead: VSN International Ltd 2009
17. The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Daetwyler HD, Pong-Wong R, Villanueva B, Woolliams JA, Genetics 2010 185 1021 1031 10.1534/genetics.110.116855 20407128
18. Impact of reduced marker set estimation of genomic relationship matrices on genomic selection for feed efficiency in Angus cattle. Rolf MM, Taylor JF, Schnabel RD, McKay SD, McClure MC, Northcutt SL, Kerley MS, Weaber RL, BMC Genetics 2010 11 24 20403185
19. Extension of the Bayesian Alphabet for Genomic Selection. Habier D, Fernando RL, Kizilkaya K, Garrick DJ, Proceedings of the 9th Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production: 1-6 August 2010; Leipzig 2010 468
20. A comparison of five methods to predict genomic breeding values of dairy bulls from genome-wide SNP markers. Moser G, Tier B, Crump RE, Khatkar MS, Raadsma HW, Genet Sel Evol 2009 41 56 10.1186/1297-9686-41-56 20043835
21. Invited review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. VanRaden PM, Van Tassell CP, Wiggans GR, Sonstegard TS, Schnabel RD, Taylor JF, Schenkel F, J Dairy Sci 2009 92 16 24 10.3168/jds.2008-1514 19109259
22. Genomic selection: Prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Goddard ME, Genetica 2009 136 245 257 10.1007/s10709-008-9308-0 18704696
23. Reliability of genomic breeding values across multiple populations. de Roos APW, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME, Genetics 2009 183 1545 1553 10.1534/genetics. 109.104935 19822733
24. Accurate prediction of genetic values for complex traits by whole-genome resequencing. Meuwissen THE, Goddard ME, Genetics 2010 185 623 31 10.1534/genetics.110.116590 20308278