Shrinkage Estimation of the Realized Relationship Matrix

Abstract

The additive relationship matrix plays an important role in mixed model prediction of breeding values. For genotype matrix X (loci in columns), the product XX′ is widely used as a realized relationship matrix, but the scaling of this matrix is ambiguous. Our first objective was to derive a proper scaling such that the mean diagonal element equals 1+f, where f is the inbreeding coefficient of the current population. The result is a formula involving the covariance matrix for sampling genomic loci, which must be estimated with markers. Our second objective was to investigate whether shrinkage estimation of this covariance matrix can improve the accuracy of breeding value (GEBV) predictions with low-density markers. Using an analytical formula for shrinkage intensity that is optimal with respect to mean-squared error, simulations revealed that shrinkage can significantly increase GEBV accuracy in unstructured populations, but only for phenotyped lines; there was no benefit for unphenotyped lines. The accuracy gain from shrinkage increased with heritability, but at high heritability (> 0.6) this benefit was irrelevant because phenotypic accuracy was comparable. These trends were confirmed in a commercial pig population with progeny-test-estimated breeding values. For an anonymous trait where phenotypic accuracy was 0.58, shrinkage increased the average GEBV accuracy from 0.56 to 0.62 (SE < 0.00) when using random sets of 384 markers from a 60K array. We conclude that when moderate-accuracy phenotypes and low-density markers are available for the candidates of genomic selection, shrinkage estimation of the relationship matrix can improve genetic gain.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 26

1. 1.

   Bernardo R., 2010 Breeding for Quantitative Traits in Plants, Ed. 2 Stemma Press, Woodbury, MN

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Casella G. Berger R. L., 2002 Statistical Inference, Ed. 2 Duxbury, Pacific Grove, CA

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Cleveland M. A. Hickey J. M. Forni S., 2012 A common dataset for genomic analysis of livestock populations. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 2: 429–435

   Not in our library10.1534/g3.111.001453

4. 4.

   Cook J. P. McMullen M. D. Holland J. B. Tian F. Bradbury P., 2012 Genetic architecture of maize kernel composition in the nested association mapping and inbred association panels. Plant Physiol. 158: 824–834

   Not in our library10.1104/pp.111.185033

5. 5.

   Efron B., 1975 Biased versus unbiased estimation. Adv. Math. 16: 259–277

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   Endelman J. B., 2011 Ridge regression and other kernels for genomic selection with R package rrBLUP. Plant Genome 4: 250–255

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   Fisher R. A., 1941 Average excess and average effect of a gene substitution. Ann. Eugen. 11: 53–63

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   Goddard M., 1986 Discussion summary part VI: selection and non-random mating, pp. 474–475 in Advances in Statistical Methods for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, edited by Gianola D. Hammond K. Springer, Berlin

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   Habier D. Fernando R. L. Dekkers J. C. M., 2007 The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics 177: 2389–2397

   Not in our library10.1534/genetics.107.081190

10. 10.

    Henderson C. R., 1984 Applications of Linear Models in Animal Breeding, Ed. 3. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    James W. Stein C., 1961 Estimation with quadratic loss, pp. 361–380 in Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Vol. 1 University of California Press, Berkeley

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    Kang H. M. Zaitlen N. A. Wade C. M. Kirby A. Heckerman D., 2008 Efficient control of population structure in model organism association mapping. Genetics 178: 1709–1723

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.107.080101

13. 13.

    Kempthorne O., 1957 An Introduction to Genetic Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    Ledoit O. Wolf M., 2004 A well-conditioned estimator for large-dimensional covariance matrices. J. Multivariate Anal. 88: 365–411

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Lynch M. Walsh B., 1998 Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Piepho H. P., 2009 Ridge regression and extensions for genomewide selection in maize. Crop Sci. 49: 1165–1176

    Not in our library

17. 17.

    Piepho H. P. Möhring J. Melchinger A. E. Büchse A., 2008 BLUP for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphytica 161: 209–228

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    Powell J. E. Visscher P. M. Goddard M. E., 2010 Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies. Nat. Genet. 11: 800–805

    Not in our library10.1038/nrg2865

19. 19.

    R Development Core Team, 2011 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna

    Not in our library

20. 20.

    Schäfer J. Strimmer K., 2005 A shrinkage approach to large-scale covariance matrix estimation and implications for functional genomics. Stat. Appl. Genet. Mol. Biol. 4: 32

    Not in our library10.2202/1544-6115.1175

21. 21.

    Searle S. R., 1971 Linear Models. John Wiley & Sons, New York

    Not in our library

22. 22.

    Searle S. R. Casella G. C. McCulloch C. E., 1992 Variance Components. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ

    Not in our library

23. 23.

    Stein C., 1956 Inadmissibility of the usual estimator for the mean of a multivariate normal distribution, pp. 197–206 in Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, Vol. 1 University of California Press, Berkeley

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    VanRaden P. M., 2008 Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J. Dairy Sci. 91: 4414–4423

    Not in our library10.3168/jds.2007-0980

25. 25.

    Yang J. Benyamin B. McEvoy B. P. Cordon S. Henders A. K., 2010 Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nat. Genet. 42: 565–569

    Not in our library10.1038/ng.608

26. 26.

    Zhao K. Tung C.-W. Eizenga G. C. Wright M. H. Ali L., 2011 Genome-wide association mapping reveals a rich genetic architecture of complex traits in Oryza sativa. Nat. Commun. 2: 467

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms1467

Cited by papers we hold 10

• Improving Association Studies and Genomic Predictions for Climbing Beans With Data From Bush Bean Populations · 2022
  Not checked
• SNP-based analysis reveals unexpected features of genetic diversity, parental contributions and pollen contamination in a white spruce breeding program · 2021
  Not checked
• Multi‐trait genomic selection for weevil resistance, growth, and wood quality in Norway spruce · 2020
  Not checked
• Natural variation in C. elegans arsenic toxicity is explained by differences in branched chain amino acid metabolism · 2019
  Not checked
• Prospects and Challenges of Applied Genomic Selection—A New Paradigm in Breeding for Grain Yield in Bread Wheat · 2018
  Not checked
• Accounting for Genotype-by-Environment Interactions and Residual Genetic Variation in Genomic Selection for Water-Soluble Carbohydrate Concentration in Wheat · 2018
  Not checked
• Hybrid Performance of an Immortalized F2 Rapeseed Population Is Driven by Additive, Dominance, and Epistatic Effects · 2017
  Not checked
• Uncovering the Genetic Architecture of Seed Weight and Size in Intermediate Wheatgrass through Linkage and Association Mapping · 2017
  Not checked
• Canopy Temperature and Vegetation Indices from High-Throughput Phenotyping Improve Accuracy of Pedigree and Genomic Selection for Grain Yield in Wheat · 2016
  No notice
• Training set optimization under population structure in genomic selection · 2014
  No notice

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.