↓ Skip to main content

Weighting Strategies for Single-Step Genomic BLUP: An Iterative Approach for Accurate Calculation of GEBV and GWAS

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
118 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Weighting Strategies for Single-Step Genomic BLUP: An Iterative Approach for Accurate Calculation of GEBV and GWAS
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2016.00151
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xinyue Zhang, Daniela Lourenco, Ignacio Aguilar, Andres Legarra, Ignacy Misztal

Abstract

Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Predictor (GBLUP) assumes equal variance for all single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). When traits are influenced by major SNP, Bayesian methods have the advantage of SNP selection. To overcome the limitation of GBLUP, unequal variance or weights for all SNP are applied in a method called weighted GBLUP (WGBLUP). If only a fraction of animals is genotyped, single-step WGBLUP (WssGBLUP) can be used. Default weights in WGBLUP or WssGBLUP are obtained iteratively based on single SNP effect squared (u (2)) and/or heterozygosity. When the weights are optimal, prediction accuracy, and ability to detect major SNP are maximized. The objective was to develop optimal weights for WGBLUP-based methods. We evaluated 5 new procedures that accounted for locus-specific or windows-specific variance to maximize accuracy of predicting genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) and SNP effect. Simulated datasets consisted of phenotypes for 13,000 animals, including 1540 animals genotyped for 45,000 SNP. Scenarios with 5, 100, and 500 simulated quantitative trait loci (QTL) were considered. The 5 new procedures for SNP weighting were: (1) u (2) plus a constant equal to the weight of the top SNP; (2) from a heavy-tailed distribution (similar to BayesA); (3) for every 20 SNP in a window along the whole genome, the largest effect (u (2)) among them; (4) the mean effect of every 20 SNP; and (5) the summation of every 20 SNP. Those methods were compared to the default WssGBLUP, GBLUP, BayesB, and BayesC. WssGBLUP methods were evaluated over 10 iterations. The accuracy of predicting GEBV was the correlation between true and estimated genomic breeding values for 300 genotyped animals from the last generation. The ability to detect the simulated QTL was also investigated. For most of the QTL scenarios, the accuracies obtained with all WssGBLUP procedures were higher compared to those from BayesB and BayesC, partly due to automatic inclusion of parent average in the former. Manhattan plots had higher resolution with 5 and 100 QTL. Using a common weight for a window of 20 SNP that sums or averages the SNP variance enhances accuracy of predicting GEBV and provides accurate estimation of marker effects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 170 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 35 20%
Researcher 30 17%
Student > Master 26 15%
Other 14 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 6%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 32 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 97 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 10%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 2%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 6 3%
Unknown 39 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2016.
All research outputs
#14,858,374
of 22,883,326 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#4,497
of 11,919 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,922
of 343,548 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#29
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,883,326 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,919 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,548 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.