Solving efficiently large single‐step genomic best linear unbiased prediction models

Single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) requires a dense matrix of the size equal to the number of genotyped animals in the coefficient matrix of mixed model equations (MME). When the number of genotyped animals is high, solving time of MME will be dominated by this matrix. The matrix is the difference of two inverse relationship matrices: genomic (G) and pedigree (A22 ). Different approaches were used to ease computations, reduce computing time and improve numerical stability. Inverse of A22 can be computed as A22-1=A22-A21A11-1A12 where Aij , i, j = 1,2, are sparse sub-matrices of A-1 , and numbers 1 and 2 refer to non-genotyped and genotyped animals, respectively. Inversion of A11 was avoided by three alternative approaches: iteration on pedigree (IOP), matrix iteration in memory (IM), and Cholesky decomposition by CHOLMOD library (CM). For the inverse of G, the APY (algorithm for proven and young) approach using Cholesky decomposition was formulated. Different approaches to choose the APY core were compared. These approaches were tested on a joint genetic evaluation of the Nordic Holstein cattle for fertility traits and had 81,031 genotyped animals. Computing time per iteration was 1.19 min by regular ssGBLUP, 1.49 min by IOP, 1.32 min by IM, and 1.21 min by CM. In comparison with the regular ssGBLUP, the total computing time decreased due to omitting the inversion of the relationship matrix A22 . When APY used 10,000 (20,000) animals in the core, the computing time per iteration was at most 0.44 (0.63) min by all the APY alternatives. A core of 10,000 animals in APY gave GEBVs sufficiently close to those by regular ssGBLUP but needed only 25% of the total computing time. The developed approaches to invert the two relationship matrices are expected to allow much higher number of genotyped animals than was used in this study.

[1]  YANQING CHEN,et al.  Algorithm 8 xx : CHOLMOD , supernodal sparse Cholesky factorization and update / downdate ∗ , 2006 .

[2]  J. Pösö,et al.  Single-step genomic evaluation using multitrait random regression model and test-day data. , 2015, Journal of dairy science.

[3]  Ismo Strandén,et al.  Comparison of Some Equivalent Equations to Solve Single-Step GBLUP , 2014 .

[4]  I. Misztal,et al.  Use of the preconditioned conjugate gradient algorithm as a generic solver for mixed-model equations in animal breeding applications. , 2001, Journal of animal science.

[5]  Timothy A. Davis,et al.  Dynamic Supernodes in Sparse Cholesky Update/Downdate and Triangular Solves , 2009, TOMS.

[6]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Genetic Evaluation using Unsymmetric Single Step Genomic Methodology with Large Number of Genotypes , 2013 .

[7]  G Banos,et al.  Weighting factors of sire daughter information in international genetic evaluations. , 2001, Journal of dairy science.

[8]  ScienceOpen Admin Genomic Prediction , 2019 .

[9]  A Legarra,et al.  Computational strategies for national integration of phenotypic, genomic, and pedigree data in a single-step best linear unbiased prediction. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[10]  I Misztal,et al.  Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[11]  I Misztal,et al.  Implementation of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor for US Holsteins with a large number of genotyped animals. , 2016, Journal of dairy science.

[12]  Z Liu,et al.  A single-step genomic model with direct estimation of marker effects. , 2014, Journal of dairy science.

[13]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.

[14]  Jack J. Dongarra,et al.  A set of level 3 basic linear algebra subprograms , 1990, TOMS.

[15]  M. Britten,et al.  Effect of pepsin-treated bovine and goat caseinomacropeptide on Escherichia coli and Lactobacillus rhamnosus in acidic conditions. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[16]  I Misztal,et al.  Using recursion to compute the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix. , 2014, Journal of dairy science.

[17]  Nicolas Gengler,et al.  Inversion of a part of the numerator relationship matrix using pedigree information , 2013, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[18]  M. Lund,et al.  Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped , 2010, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[19]  Barry W. Peyton,et al.  Block sparse Cholesky algorithms on advanced uniprocessor computers , 1991 .

[20]  Ismo Strandén,et al.  Test-Day single-step genomic evaluation using APY algorithm , 2016 .

[21]  C. R. Henderson A simple method for computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix used in prediction of breeding values , 1976 .

[22]  M. Lidauer,et al.  Solving large mixed linear models using preconditioned conjugate gradient iteration. , 1999, Journal of dairy science.

[23]  Mary Sara McPeek,et al.  Best Linear Unbiased Allele‐Frequency Estimation in Complex Pedigrees , 2004, Biometrics.

[24]  I Misztal,et al.  Hot topic: Use of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) with a large number of genotypes. , 2015, Journal of dairy science.

[25]  Rohan L Fernando,et al.  A class of Bayesian methods to combine large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals for whole-genome analyses , 2014, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[26]  R. L. Quaas,et al.  Computing the Diagonal Elements and Inverse of a Large Numerator Relationship Matrix , 1976 .