Impact of genotype imputation on the performance of GBLUP and Bayesian methods for genomic prediction

PLoS ONE

Volumn 9, Issue 7, 2014, Pages

  Chen, Liuhong ^a   Li, Changxi ^a,b   Sargolzaei, Mehdi ^c   Schenkel, Flavio ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b LACOMBE RESEARCH CENTRE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

^d L'Alliance Boviteq Inc   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MILK FAT; MILK PROTEIN;

ACCURACY; ANALYTIC METHOD; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ANALYZER; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CATTLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FAT CONTENT; GBLUP METHOD; GENETIC TRAIT; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; MILK PRODUCTION; NONHUMAN; POPULATION GENETICS; PREDICTION; PROTEIN CONTENT; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCUS; SCORING SYSTEM; SIMULATION; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; SOMATIC CELL; VALIDATION STUDY; ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BOVINAE; FEMALE; MALE; MOLECULAR EVOLUTION; PHENOTYPE; PROCEDURES; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ALGORITHMS; ANIMALS; BAYES THEOREM; CATTLE; EVOLUTION, MOLECULAR; FEMALE; GENOMICS; GENOTYPE; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; PHENOTYPE; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT LOCI; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84904253069     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101544     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Meuwissen TH, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157: 1819-1829. (Pubitemid 32298846)
2. Goddard ME, Hayes BJ, Meuwissen THE (2011) Using the genomic relationship matrix to predict the accuracy of genomic selection. J Anim Breed Genet 128: 409-421.
3. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM (2007) The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics 177: 2389-2397. (Pubitemid 350277013)
4. Legarra A, Aguilar I, Misztal I (2009) A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. J Dairy Sci 92: 4656-4663.
5. VanRaden PM (2008) Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci 91: 4414-4423.
6. Zhang Z, Liu JF, Ding XD, Bijma P, de Koning DJ, et al. (2010) Best linear unbiased prediction of genomic breeding values using a trait-specific markerderived relationship matrix. PLoS ONE 5: e12648.
7. Nejati-Javaremi A, Smith C, Gibson J (1997) Effect of total allelic relationship on accuracy of evaluation and response to selection. J Anim Sci 75: 1738-1745. (Pubitemid 127444988)
8. Calus MPL, Meuwissen THE, de Roos APW, Veerkamp RF (2008) Accuracy of genomic selection using different methods to define haplotypes. Genetics 178: 553-561. (Pubitemid 351398768)
9. Habier D, Fernando RL, Kizilkaya K, Garrick DJ (2011) Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection. BMC Bioinformatics 12: 186.
10. Verbyla KL, Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Goddard ME (2009) Accuracy of genomic selection using stochastic search variable selection in australian holstein friesian dairy cattle. Genetics Research 91: 307-311.
11. Daetwyler HD, Pong-Wong R, Villanueva B, Woolliams JA (2010) The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 185: 1021-1031.
12. Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AJ, Goddard ME (2009) Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges. J Dairy Sci 92: 433-443.
13. VanRaden PM, Van Tassell CP, Wiggans GR, Sonstegard TS, Schnabel RD, et al. (2009) Invited review: Reliability of genomic predictions for north american holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci 92: 16-24.
14. Boichard D, Chung H, Dassonneville R, David X, Eggen A, et al. (2012) Design of a bovine low-density snp array optimized for imputation. PLoS ONE 7: e34130.
15. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM (2009) Genomic selection using lowdensity marker panels. Genetics 182: 343-353.
16. Huang YJ, Hickey JM, Cleveland MA, Maltecca C (2012) Assessment of alternative genotyping strategies to maximize imputation accuracy at minimal cost. Genet Sel Evol 44: 25.
17. Khatkar MS, Moser G, Hayes BJ, Raadsma HW (2012) Strategies and utility of imputed snp genotypes for genomic analysis in dairy cattle. BMC Genomics 13: 538.
18. Van Doormaal B, Muir B (2012) Genotyping with low density panels: 3 k vs 6 k. Available: http://www.cdn.ca/document.php?id = 262. Accessed 10 June 2014.
19. Wiggans G, Cooper T, Van Tassell C, Sonstegard T, Simpson E (2013) Technical note: characteristics and use of the illumina bovineld and geneseek genomic profiler low-density bead chips for genomic evaluation. J Dairy Sci 96: 1258-1263.
20. Cleveland M, Hickey J (2013) Practical implementation of cost-effective genomic selection in commercial pig breeding using imputation. J Anim Sci 91: 3583-3592.
21. Mulder HA, Calus MPL, Druet T, Schrooten C (2012) Imputation of genotypes with low-density chips and its effect on reliability of direct genomic values in dutch holstein cattle. J Dairy Sci 95: 876-889.
22. Weigel KA, de los Campos G, Vazquez AI, Rosa GJM, Gianola D, et al. (2010) Accuracy of direct genomic values derived from imputed single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes in jersey cattle. J Dairy Sci 93: 5423-5435.
23. Zhang Z, Druet T (2010) Marker imputation with low-density marker panels in dutch holstein cattle. J Dairy Sci 93: 5487-5494.
24. Sargolzaei M, Chesnais JP, Schenkel FS (2011) Fimpute - an efficient imputation algorithm for dairy cattle populations. J Anim Sci 89, E-Suppl 1
25. J Dairy Sci 94, Suppl 1: 421 (333).
26. Sargolzaei M, Schenkel FS, Jansen GB, Schaeffer LR (2008) Extent of linkage disequilibrium in holstein cattle in north america. J Dairy Sci 91: 2106-2117. (Pubitemid 351730915)
27. Sargolzaei M, VanRaden PM, Kistemaker GJ, Schenkel FS (2011) Gebv software. L'alliance boviteq, sainthyacinthe, quebec and centre for genetic improvement of livestock, University of Guelph, Ontario.
28. Gianola D, de los Campos G, Hill WG, Manfredi E, Fernando R (2009) Additive genetic variability and the bayesian alphabet. Genetics 183: 347-363.
29. Meuwissen THE (2009) Accuracy of breeding values of 'unrelated' individuals predicted by dense snp genotyping. Gene Sel Evol 41: 35.
30. Calus MPL (2010) Genomic breeding value prediction: Methods and procedures. Animal 4: 157-164.
31. Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2009) Asreml user guide release 3.0. Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1ES, UK. VSN International Ltd. Available: http://www.vsni.co.uk. Accessed 10 June 2014.
32. Grisart B, Farnir F, Karim L, Cambisano N, Kim JJ, et al. (2004) Genetic and functional confirmation of the causality of the dgat1 k232a quantitative trait nucleotide in affecting milk yield and composition. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101: 2398-2403. (Pubitemid 38269323)
33. Zhang Z, Ding X, Liu J, Zhang Q, de Koning DJ (2011) Accuracy of genomic prediction using low-density marker panels. J Dairy Sci 94: 3642-3650.
34. Dassonneville R, Baur A, Fritz S, Boichard D, Ducrocq V (2012) Inclusion of cow records in genomic evaluations and impact on bias due to preferential treatment. Genet Sel Evol 44: 40.
35. Wiggans G, Cooper T, VanRaden P, Cole J (2011) Technical note: adjustment of traditional cow evaluations to improve accuracy of genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci 94: 6188-6193.