Genomic prediction of ordinal traits via application of the BLASSO and BayesCπ methods in simulated data
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.33837/msj.v3i1.1112Mots-clés :
genomic selection, bayesian methods, ANOVA, ranking, molecular markersRésumé
This paper aims at evaluating the use of BLASSO and BayesCπ methods for the genomic prediction of ordinal traits, studying factors that influence the performance of the models, and if there is a difference in the ranking of individuals. Genotypic and phenotypic information from a simulated population of 4,100 animals, genotyped by 10k markers (QTL-MAS Workshop) were used. 3,000 animals were used for estimation of the predictive ability and bias accessed through 5-fold cross-validation with five repetitions. The other animals were used as a population of selection. One ANOVA and the Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welch test were performed to verify, respectively, which factors influence significantly the genomic prediction and if there is a statistical difference between the models. The results show that the four main factors significantly (p < 0.05) affect the predictive ability of GEBVs (genomic estimated breeding values), and that heritability and the number of categories are the most influential factors. Only for ordinal trait 2, with a density of 9k, significant differences (p < 0.05) were observed between the predictive ability of the methods. In general, the BayesCπ method proved to be more efficient in the identification of relevant SNPs and in the ranking of individuals. Finally, there is a slight superiority of the BayesCπ method for the genomic prediction of ordinal traits.
Références
Atefi, A., ShadparvaR, A. A., & Hossein-Zadeh, N. G. (2016). Comparison of whole genome prediction accuracy across generations using parametric and semi parametric methods. Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences, 38(4), 447-453.
Campos, G. de los et al. (2009). Predicting quantitative traits with regression models for dense molecular markers and pedigree. Genetics, 182(1), 375-385.
Croiseau, P., Guillaume, F., & Fritz, S. (2012). Comparison of Genomic Selection Approaches in Brown Swiss within Intergenomics. Interbull Bulletin, 46, 127-132.
González-Recio, O., & Forni, S. (2011). Genome-wide prediction of discrete traits using bayesian regressions and machine learning. Genetics Selection Evolution, 43(7), 1-12.
Grattapaglia, D., & Resende, M. D. V. (2011). Genomic selection in forest tree breeding. Tree Genetics & Genomes, 7, 241-255.
Grosse-Brinkhaus, C., Bergfelder, S., & Tholen, E. (2014). Genome wide association analysis of the QTL MAS 2012 data investigating pleiotropy. BMC Proceedings, 8(suppl 5), 1-5.
Habier, D., Fernando, R. L., Kizilkaya, K., & Garrick, D. J. (2011). Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection. BMC Bioinformatics, 12, 1-12.
Hsu, J. C. (1996). Multiple comparisons: theory and methods. London: Chapman and Hall.
Kendall, M. G., & Babington Smith, B. (1939). The problem of m rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 10(3), 275-287.
Kizilkaya, K., Fernando, R. L., & Garrick, D. J. (2014). Reduction in accuracy of genomic prediction for ordered categorical data compared to continuous observations. Genetics Selection Evolution, 46(37), 1-13.
Mendiburu, F. (2019). Agricolae: Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, R package version 1.3-1. Available at: ˂https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/agricolae/index.html˃. Accessed on: 16/01/2020.
Meuwissen, T. H. E., Hayes, B. J., & Goddard, M. E. (2001). Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics, 157(4), 1819-1829.
Montesinos-López, O. A., Montesinos-López, A., Pérez-Rodríguez, P., Campos, G. de los, Eskridge, K., & Crossa, J. (2015). Threshold Models for Genome-Enabled Prediction of Ordinal Categorical Traits in Plant Breeding. Genomic selection, 5, 291-300.
Park, T., & Casella, G. (2008). The Bayesian Lasso. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(482), 681-686.
Pérez, P., & Campos, G. de los (2014). Genome-Wide Regression and Prediction with the BGLR Statistical Package. Genomic selection, 198, 483-495.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: ˂https://www.r-project.org/˃. Accessed on: 02/07/2018.
Resende Junior, M. F. R. et al. (2012). Accuracy of Genomic Selection Methods in a Standard Data Set of Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.). Genomic selection, 190, 1503-1510.
Signorell, A. et al. (2019) DescTools: Tools for Descriptive Statistics, R package version 0.99.31. Available at: ˂https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/DescTools/index.html˃. Accessed on: 16/01/2020.
Usai, M. G., Gaspa, G., Macciotta, N. P. P., Carta, A., & Casu, S. (2014). XVI th QTLMAS: simulated data set and comparative analysis of submitted results for QTL mapping and genomic evaluation. BMC Proceedings, 8, 1-9.
Wang, C.L. et al. (2013). Bayesian methods for estimating GEBVs of threshold traits. Heredity, 110, 213-219.
Wang, C., Li, X., Qian, R., Su, G., Zhang, Q., & Ding, X. (2017). Bayesian methods for jointly estimating genomic breeding values of one continuous and one threshold trait. Plos one, 12(4), 1-18.
Téléchargements
Publiée
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:
a) The Authors retain the copyright and grant the journal the right to first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License that allows the sharing of the work with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b) Authors are authorized to assume additional contracts separately, for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in this journal (eg, publishing in institutional repository or as a book chapter), with acknowledgment of authorship and initial publication in this journal.
c) Authors are allowed and encouraged to publish and distribute their work online (eg in institutional repositories or on their personal page) at any point before or during the editorial process, as this can generate productive changes, as well as increase impact and citation of the published work.
