Using recursion to compute the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix.

Computing the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix using recursion was investigated. A traditional algorithm to invert the numerator relationship matrix is based on the observation that the conditional expectation for an additive effect of 1 animal given the effects of all other animals depends on the effects of its sire and dam only, each with a coefficient of 0.5. With genomic relationships, such an expectation depends on all other genotyped animals, and the coefficients do not have any set value. For each animal, the coefficients plus the conditional variance can be called a genomic recursion. If such recursions are known, the mixed model equations can be solved without explicitly creating the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix. Several algorithms were developed to create genomic recursions. In an algorithm with sequential updates, genomic recursions are created animal by animal. That algorithm can also be used to update a known inverse of a genomic relationship matrix for additional genotypes. In an algorithm with forward updates, a newly computed recursion is immediately applied to update recursions for remaining animals. The computing costs for both algorithms depend on the sparsity pattern of the genomic recursions, but are lower or equal than for regular inversion. An algorithm for proven and young animals assumes that the genomic recursions for young animals contain coefficients only for proven animals. Such an algorithm generates exact genomic EBV in genomic BLUP and is an approximation in single-step genomic BLUP. That algorithm has a cubic cost for the number of proven animals and a linear cost for the number of young animals. The genomic recursions can provide new insight into genomic evaluation and possibly reduce costs of genetic predictions with extremely large numbers of genotypes.

[1]  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.

[2]  K. Meyer,et al.  Technical note: updating the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix. , 2013, Journal of animal science.

[3]  I Misztal,et al.  Efficient computation of the genomic relationship matrix and other matrices used in single-step evaluation. , 2011, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[4]  I Misztal,et al.  Genome-wide marker-assisted selection combining all pedigree phenotypic information with genotypic data in one step: An example using broiler chickens. , 2011, Journal of animal science.

[5]  J. Sherman,et al.  Adjustment of an Inverse Matrix Corresponding to a Change in One Element of a Given Matrix , 1950 .

[6]  Christian Maltecca,et al.  Effectiveness of genomic prediction on milk flow traits in dairy cattle , 2012, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

[8]  W. Muir,et al.  Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes. , 2012, Genetics research.

[9]  Jean-Jacques Colleau,et al.  An indirect approach to the extensive calculation of relationship coefficients , 2002, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

[11]  P Madsen,et al.  Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs. , 2012, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[12]  B. Harris,et al.  Impact of Including a Large Number of Female Genotypes on Genomic Selection , 2013 .

[13]  M. Lund,et al.  Genomic prediction for Nordic Red Cattle using one-step and selection index blending. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[14]  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.

[15]  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.

[16]  I Misztal,et al.  Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[17]  Vincent Ducrocq,et al.  Accounting for genomic pre-selection in national BLUP evaluations in dairy cattle , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

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

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

[21]  R. Fernando,et al.  Persistence of accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values over generations in layer chickens , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[22]  C. E. Terrill,et al.  Systematic procedures for calculating inbreeding coefficients. , 1949, The Journal of heredity.

[23]  Paul M VanRaden Avoiding Bias From Genomic Pre-Selection in Converting Daughter Information Across Countries , 2012 .

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

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

[26]  I Misztal,et al.  Multiple-trait genomic evaluation of linear type traits using genomic and phenotypic data in US Holsteins. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[27]  I Misztal,et al.  Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection. , 2011, Genetics research.

[28]  I. Misztal,et al.  A recursive algorithm for decomposition and creation of the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[29]  J. Hickey,et al.  Practical implementation of cost-effective genomic selection in commercial pig breeding using imputation. , 2013, Journal of animal science.

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