Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection.

Prediction of genetic merit or disease risk using genetic marker information is becoming a common practice for selection of livestock and plant species. For the successful application of genome-wide marker-assisted selection (GWMAS), genomic predictions should be accurate and unbiased. The effect of selection on bias and accuracy of genomic predictions was studied in two simulated animal populations under weak or strong selection and with several heritabilities. Prediction of genetic values was by best-linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) using data either from relatives summarized in pseudodata for genotyped individuals (multiple-step method) or using all available data jointly (single-step method). The single-step method combined genomic- and pedigree-based relationship matrices. Predictions by the multiple-step method were biased. Predictions by a single-step method were less biased and more accurate but under strong selection were less accurate. When genomic relationships were shifted by a constant, the single-step method was unbiased and the most accurate. The value of that constant, which adjusts for non-random selection of genotyped individuals, can be derived analytically.

[1]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Interbull validation test for genomic evaluations , 2010 .

[2]  D. Gianola,et al.  Optimal properties of the conditional mean as a selection criterion , 1986, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[3]  P. Visscher,et al.  Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[4]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[5]  W. G. Hill,et al.  Understanding and using quantitative genetic variation , 2010, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[6]  Mehdi Sargolzaei,et al.  QMSim: a large-scale genome simulator for livestock , 2009, Bioinform..

[7]  D. Gianola,et al.  Likelihood inferences in animal breeding under selection: a missing-data theory view point , 1989, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[8]  J. Woolliams,et al.  The Impact of Genetic Architecture on Genome-Wide Evaluation Methods , 2010, Genetics.

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

[10]  C. Cockerham,et al.  Analyses of gene frequencies. , 1973, Genetics.

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

[12]  R. Roehe,et al.  The influence of maternal effects on accuracy of evaluation of litter size in swine. , 1993, Journal of animal science.

[13]  M. Goddard,et al.  Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes , 2009, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[14]  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.

[15]  Daniel Sorensen,et al.  Genetic Properties of Animal Models , 1988 .

[16]  M. Goddard,et al.  Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. , 2001, Genetics.

[17]  C. R. Henderson SIRE EVALUATION AND GENETIC TRENDS , 1973 .

[18]  Daniel Sorensen,et al.  Estimation of Response to Selection Using Least-Squares and Mixed Model Methodology , 1984 .

[19]  J. Woolliams,et al.  Genomic selection using different marker types and densities. , 2008, Journal of animal science.

[20]  S. R. Searle,et al.  The estimation of environmental and genetic trends from records subject to culling. , 1959 .

[21]  I Misztal,et al.  Effect of different genomic relationship matrices on accuracy and scale. , 2011, Journal of animal science.

[22]  V Ducrocq,et al.  Evidence of biases in genetic evaluations due to genomic preselection in dairy cattle. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[23]  C. Cockerham,et al.  VARIANCE OF GENE FREQUENCIES , 1969, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[24]  J. Woolliams,et al.  The Accuracy of Genomic Selection in Norwegian Red Cattle Assessed by Cross-Validation , 2009, Genetics.

[25]  R. Fernando,et al.  Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses , 2009, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[26]  Piter Bijma,et al.  Estimating Relatedness Between Individuals in General Populations With a Focus on Their Use in Conservation Programs , 2006, Genetics.

[27]  I Misztal,et al.  A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[28]  P. Visscher,et al.  Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix. , 2009, Genetics research.

[29]  R. L. Quaas,et al.  Additive Genetic Model with Groups and Relationships , 1988 .

[30]  S. R. Searle,et al.  On Deriving the Inverse of a Sum of Matrices , 1981 .