BackgroundGenomic data are used in animal breeding to assist genetic evaluation. Several models to estimate genomic breeding values have been studied. In general, two approaches have been used. One approach estimates the marker effects first and then, genomic breeding values are obtained by summing marker effects. In the second approach, genomic breeding values are estimated directly using an equivalent model with a genomic relationship matrix. Allele coding is the method chosen to assign values to the regression coefficients in the statistical model. A common allele coding is zero for the homozygous genotype of the first allele, one for the heterozygote, and two for the homozygous genotype for the other allele. Another common allele coding changes these regression coefficients by subtracting a value from each marker such that the mean of regression coefficients is zero within each marker. We call this centered allele coding. This study considered effects of different allele coding methods on inference. Both marker-based and equivalent models were considered, and restricted maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods were used in inference.ResultsTheoretical derivations showed that parameter estimates and estimated marker effects in marker-based models are the same irrespective of the allele coding, provided that the model has a fixed general mean. For the equivalent models, the same results hold, even though different allele coding methods lead to different genomic relationship matrices. Calculated genomic breeding values are independent of allele coding when the estimate of the general mean is included into the values. Reliabilities of estimated genomic breeding values calculated using elements of the inverse of the coefficient matrix depend on the allele coding because different allele coding methods imply different models. Finally, allele coding affects the mixing of Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms, with the centered coding being the best.ConclusionsDifferent allele coding methods lead to the same inference in the marker-based and equivalent models when a fixed general mean is included in the model. However, reliabilities of genomic breeding values are affected by the allele coding method used. The centered coding has some numerical advantages when Markov chain Monte Carlo methods are used.
[1]
C. R. Henderson.
Applications of linear models in animal breeding
,
1984
.
[2]
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.
[3]
I Misztal,et al.
A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information.
,
2009,
Journal of dairy science.
[4]
M. Goddard,et al.
Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps.
,
2001,
Genetics.
[5]
P. Visscher,et al.
Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies
,
2010,
Nature Reviews Genetics.
[6]
P. Visscher,et al.
Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix.
,
2009,
Genetics research.
[7]
M. Lund,et al.
Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped
,
2010,
Genetics Selection Evolution.
[8]
Charles J. Geyer,et al.
Practical Markov Chain Monte Carlo
,
1992
.
[9]
Richard Barrett,et al.
Templates for the Solution of Linear Systems: Building Blocks for Iterative Methods
,
1994,
Other Titles in Applied Mathematics.
[10]
Raphael Mrode,et al.
Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values
,
1996
.
[11]
D. Garrick,et al.
Technical note: Derivation of equivalent computing algorithms for genomic predictions and reliabilities of animal merit.
,
2009,
Journal of dairy science.
[12]
Örjan Carlborg,et al.
Overview – dataset comparison II Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XII common dataset . II : genome-wide association and fine mapping
,
2009
.
[13]
Gareth O. Roberts,et al.
A General Framework for the Parametrization of Hierarchical Models
,
2007,
0708.3797.
[14]
M. Goddard.
Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response
,
2009,
Genetica.
[15]
C. R. Henderson,et al.
Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model.
,
1975,
Biometrics.
[16]
P. VanRaden,et al.
Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.
,
2008,
Journal of dairy science.
[17]
G. Roberts,et al.
Updating Schemes, Correlation Structure, Blocking and Parameterization for the Gibbs Sampler
,
1997
.
[18]
A. Verbyla,et al.
Genetics Selection Evolution
,
2009
.