A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2012 |
Outros Autores: | , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-13-100 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/4673 |
Resumo: | Background: The availability of high-density panels of SNP markers has opened new perspectives for marker-assisted selection strategies, such that genotypes for these markers are used to predict the genetic merit of selection candidates. Because the number of markers is often much larger than the number of phenotypes, marker effect estimation is not a trivial task. The objective of this research was to compare the predictive performance of ten different statistical methods employed in genomic selection, by analyzing data from a heterogeneous stock mice population.Results: For the five traits analyzed (W6W: weight at six weeks, WGS: growth slope, BL: body length, %CD8+: percentage of CD8+ cells, CD4+/ CD8+: ratio between CD4+ and CD8+ cells), within-family predictions were more accurate than across-family predictions, although this superiority in accuracy varied markedly across traits. For within-family prediction, two kernel methods, Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces Regression (RKHS) and Support Vector Regression (SVR), were the most accurate for W6W, while a polygenic model also had comparable performance. A form of ridge regression assuming that all markers contribute to the additive variance (RR_GBLUP) figured among the most accurate for WGS and BL, while two variable selection methods (LASSO and Random Forest, RF) had the greatest predictive abilities for % CD8+ and CD4+/ CD8+. RF, RKHS, SVR and RR_GBLUP outperformed the remainder methods in terms of bias and inflation of predictions.Conclusions: Methods with large conceptual differences reached very similar predictive abilities and a clear re-ranking of methods was observed in function of the trait analyzed. Variable selection methods were more accurate than the remainder in the case of % CD8+ and CD4+/ CD8+ and these traits are likely to be influenced by a smaller number of QTL than the remainder. Judged by their overall performance across traits and computational requirements, RR_GBLUP, RKHS and SVR are particularly appealing for application in genomic selection. |
id |
UNSP_61fe191cbea6d3bb4a8695d107ffa090 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/4673 |
network_acronym_str |
UNSP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository_id_str |
2946 |
spelling |
A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice populationKernel regressionLASSORandom forestridge regressionSNPSubset selectionBackground: The availability of high-density panels of SNP markers has opened new perspectives for marker-assisted selection strategies, such that genotypes for these markers are used to predict the genetic merit of selection candidates. Because the number of markers is often much larger than the number of phenotypes, marker effect estimation is not a trivial task. The objective of this research was to compare the predictive performance of ten different statistical methods employed in genomic selection, by analyzing data from a heterogeneous stock mice population.Results: For the five traits analyzed (W6W: weight at six weeks, WGS: growth slope, BL: body length, %CD8+: percentage of CD8+ cells, CD4+/ CD8+: ratio between CD4+ and CD8+ cells), within-family predictions were more accurate than across-family predictions, although this superiority in accuracy varied markedly across traits. For within-family prediction, two kernel methods, Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces Regression (RKHS) and Support Vector Regression (SVR), were the most accurate for W6W, while a polygenic model also had comparable performance. A form of ridge regression assuming that all markers contribute to the additive variance (RR_GBLUP) figured among the most accurate for WGS and BL, while two variable selection methods (LASSO and Random Forest, RF) had the greatest predictive abilities for % CD8+ and CD4+/ CD8+. RF, RKHS, SVR and RR_GBLUP outperformed the remainder methods in terms of bias and inflation of predictions.Conclusions: Methods with large conceptual differences reached very similar predictive abilities and a clear re-ranking of methods was observed in function of the trait analyzed. Variable selection methods were more accurate than the remainder in the case of % CD8+ and CD4+/ CD8+ and these traits are likely to be influenced by a smaller number of QTL than the remainder. Judged by their overall performance across traits and computational requirements, RR_GBLUP, RKHS and SVR are particularly appealing for application in genomic selection.Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)UNESP, FCAV, Dept Zootecnia, BR-14884900 Jaboticabal, SP, BrazilGenSys Consultores Assoc SS Ltda, Porto Alegre, RS, BrazilUNESP, FCAV, Dept Zootecnia, BR-14884900 Jaboticabal, SP, BrazilBiomed Central Ltd.Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)GenSys Consultores Assoc SS LtdaNeves, Haroldo H. R. [UNESP]Carvalheiro, RobertoQueiroz, Sandra A. [UNESP]2014-05-20T13:18:40Z2014-05-20T13:18:40Z2012-11-08info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article17application/pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-13-100Bmc Genetics. London: Biomed Central Ltd., v. 13, p. 17, 2012.1471-2156http://hdl.handle.net/11449/467310.1186/1471-2156-13-100WOS:000314596300001WOS000314596300001.pdf9096087557977610Web of Sciencereponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengBMC Genetics2.4691,160info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2024-06-07T18:41:05Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/4673Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T17:05:41.958641Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population |
title |
A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population |
spellingShingle |
A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population Neves, Haroldo H. R. [UNESP] Kernel regression LASSO Random forest ridge regression SNP Subset selection |
title_short |
A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population |
title_full |
A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population |
title_fullStr |
A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population |
title_full_unstemmed |
A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population |
title_sort |
A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population |
author |
Neves, Haroldo H. R. [UNESP] |
author_facet |
Neves, Haroldo H. R. [UNESP] Carvalheiro, Roberto Queiroz, Sandra A. [UNESP] |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Carvalheiro, Roberto Queiroz, Sandra A. [UNESP] |
author2_role |
author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) GenSys Consultores Assoc SS Ltda |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Neves, Haroldo H. R. [UNESP] Carvalheiro, Roberto Queiroz, Sandra A. [UNESP] |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Kernel regression LASSO Random forest ridge regression SNP Subset selection |
topic |
Kernel regression LASSO Random forest ridge regression SNP Subset selection |
description |
Background: The availability of high-density panels of SNP markers has opened new perspectives for marker-assisted selection strategies, such that genotypes for these markers are used to predict the genetic merit of selection candidates. Because the number of markers is often much larger than the number of phenotypes, marker effect estimation is not a trivial task. The objective of this research was to compare the predictive performance of ten different statistical methods employed in genomic selection, by analyzing data from a heterogeneous stock mice population.Results: For the five traits analyzed (W6W: weight at six weeks, WGS: growth slope, BL: body length, %CD8+: percentage of CD8+ cells, CD4+/ CD8+: ratio between CD4+ and CD8+ cells), within-family predictions were more accurate than across-family predictions, although this superiority in accuracy varied markedly across traits. For within-family prediction, two kernel methods, Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces Regression (RKHS) and Support Vector Regression (SVR), were the most accurate for W6W, while a polygenic model also had comparable performance. A form of ridge regression assuming that all markers contribute to the additive variance (RR_GBLUP) figured among the most accurate for WGS and BL, while two variable selection methods (LASSO and Random Forest, RF) had the greatest predictive abilities for % CD8+ and CD4+/ CD8+. RF, RKHS, SVR and RR_GBLUP outperformed the remainder methods in terms of bias and inflation of predictions.Conclusions: Methods with large conceptual differences reached very similar predictive abilities and a clear re-ranking of methods was observed in function of the trait analyzed. Variable selection methods were more accurate than the remainder in the case of % CD8+ and CD4+/ CD8+ and these traits are likely to be influenced by a smaller number of QTL than the remainder. Judged by their overall performance across traits and computational requirements, RR_GBLUP, RKHS and SVR are particularly appealing for application in genomic selection. |
publishDate |
2012 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2012-11-08 2014-05-20T13:18:40Z 2014-05-20T13:18:40Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-13-100 Bmc Genetics. London: Biomed Central Ltd., v. 13, p. 17, 2012. 1471-2156 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/4673 10.1186/1471-2156-13-100 WOS:000314596300001 WOS000314596300001.pdf 9096087557977610 |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-13-100 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/4673 |
identifier_str_mv |
Bmc Genetics. London: Biomed Central Ltd., v. 13, p. 17, 2012. 1471-2156 10.1186/1471-2156-13-100 WOS:000314596300001 WOS000314596300001.pdf 9096087557977610 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
BMC Genetics 2.469 1,160 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
17 application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Biomed Central Ltd. |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Biomed Central Ltd. |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Web of Science reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1808128754732498944 |