Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Methods for Genomic Selection of Traits with Additive and Epistatic Genetic Architectures

Abstract

Parametric and nonparametric methods have been developed for purposes of predicting phenotypes. These methods are based on retrospective analyses of empirical data consisting of genotypic and phenotypic scores. Recent reports have indicated that parametric methods are unable to predict phenotypes of traits with known epistatic genetic architectures. Herein, we review parametric methods including least squares regression, ridge regression, Bayesian ridge regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), Bayesian LASSO, best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP), Bayes A, Bayes B, Bayes C, and Bayes Cπ. We also review nonparametric methods including Nadaraya-Watson estimator, reproducing kernel Hilbert space, support vector machine regression, and neural networks. We assess the relative merits of these 14 methods in terms of accuracy and mean squared error (MSE) using simulated genetic architectures consisting of completely additive or two-way epistatic interactions in an F2 population derived from crosses of inbred lines. Each simulated genetic architecture explained either 30% or 70% of the phenotypic variability. The greatest impact on estimates of accuracy and MSE was due to genetic architecture. Parametric methods were unable to predict phenotypic values when the underlying genetic architecture was based entirely on epistasis. Parametric methods were slightly better than nonparametric methods for additive genetic architectures. Distinctions among parametric methods for additive genetic architectures were incremental. Heritability, i.e., proportion of phenotypic variability, had the second greatest impact on estimates of accuracy and MSE.

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

References 117

1. 1.

   Bain A., 1873 Mind and Body: The Theories of Their Relation, D. Appleton and Company, New York

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Beavis, W. D., 1994 The power and deceit of QTL experiments: lessons from comparative QTL studies, pp. 250–265 in Proceedings of the 49th Annual Corn and Sorghum Research Conference, edited by D. B. Wilkinson. Washington, DC: American Seed Trade Association 250– 265.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Bernardo R., 1994 Prediction of maize single-cross performance using RFLPs and information from related hybrids. Crop Sci. 34: 20–25

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   Bernardo R., 2008 Molecular markers and selection for complex traits in plants: learning from the last 20 years. Crop Sci. 48: 1649–1664

   Not in our library

5. 5.

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

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   Cherkassky V. Ma Y., 2004 Practical selection of SVM parameters and noise estimation for SVM regression. Neural Netw. 17: 113–126

   Not in our library10.1016/s0893-6080(03)00169-2

7. 7.

   Cheverud J. Routman E., 1995 Epistasis and its contribution to genetic variance components. Genetics 139: 1455–1461

   Not in our library10.1093/genetics/139.3.1455

8. 8.

   Clark R. M., 1975 A calibration curve for radiocarbon dates. Antiquity 49: 251–266

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   Cockerham C. C., 1954 An extension of the concept of partitioning hereditary variance for analysis of covariances among relatives when epistasis is present. Genetics 39: 859–882

   Not in our library10.1093/genetics/39.6.859

10. 10.

    Cooper, M., D. W. Podlich, K. P. Micallef, O. S. Smith, N. M. Jensen, et al., 2002 Complexity, quantitative traits and plant breeding: a role for simulation modelling in the genetic improvement of crops. Quantitative Genetics, Genomics and Plant Breeding 143–166.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    Corbeil R. R. Searle S. R., 1976 Restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimation of variance components in the mixed model. Technometrics 18: 31–38

    Not in our library

12. 12.

    Cordell H. J., 2002 Epistasis: what it means, what it doesn’t mean, and statistical methods to detect it in humans. Hum. Mol. Genet. 11: 2463–2468

    Not in our library10.1093/hmg/11.20.2463

13. 13.

    Cortes C. Vapnik V., 1995 Support-vector networks. Machine Leaming 20: 273–297

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    Cristianini N. Shawe-Taylor J., 2000 An Introduction to Support Vector Machines and Other Kernel-based Learning Methods, Cambridge University Press, New York

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Crow J. F., 2010 On epistasis: why it is unimportant in polygenic directional selection. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365(1544): 1241–1244

    Not in our library10.1098/rstb.2009.0275

16. 16.

    Daetwyler H. D. Pong-Wong R. Villanueva B. Woolliams J. A., 2010 The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 185: 1021–1031

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.110.116855

17. 17.

    de Boer P. M. C. Hafner C. M., 2005 Ridge regression revisited. Stat. Neerl. 59(4): 498–505

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    de los Campos, G., and P. P. Rodriguez, 2010 BLR: Bayesian Linear Regression. R package version 1.2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BLR

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    de los Campos G. Naya H. Gianola D. Crossa J. Legarra A., 2009 Predicting quantitative traits with regression models for dense molecular markers and pedigrees. Genetics 182(1): 375–385

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.109.101501

20. 20.

    de los Campos G. Gianola D. Allison D. B., 2010 a Predicting genetic predisposition in humans: the promise of whole-genome markers. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11: 880–886

    Not in our library10.1038/nrg2898

21. 21.

    de los Campos G. Gianola D. Rosa G. J. M. Weigel K. A. Crossa J., 2010 b Semi-parametric genomic-enabled prediction of genetic values using reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces methods. Genet. Res. 92: 295–308

    Not in our library10.1017/s0016672310000285

22. 22.

    de los Campos G. Hickey J. M. Pong-Wong R. Daetwyler H. D. Calus M. P. L., 2013 Whole-genome regression and prediction methods applied to plant and animal breeding. Genetics 193: 327–345

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.112.143313

23. 23.

    Dobzhansky T., 1937 Genetics of the Evolutionary Process. Columbia University Press, New York

    Not in our library

24. 24.

    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

25. 25.

    Efron B. Hastie T. Johnstone I. Tibshirani R., 2004 Least angle regression. Ann. Stat. 32: 407–499

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    Falconer D. S. Mackay T. F. C., 1996 Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    Faraway, J. J., 2006 Linear Models with R. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    Fernando R. L. Garrick D. J., 2008 GenSel—User manual for a portfolio of genomic selection related analyses. Animal Breeding and Genetics, Iowa State University, Ames. Available at: http://taurus.ansci.iastate.edu/gensel

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    Fernando R. L., and M. Grossman, 1989 Marker assisted selection using best linear unbiased prediction. Genet. Sel. Evol. 21: 467–477

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    Fisher R. A., 1918 The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans. R. Soc. Edinb. 52: 399–433

    Not in our library

31. 31.

    Flint J. Mackay T. F. C., 2009 Genetic architecture of quantitative traits in mice, flies, and humans. Genome Res. 19: 723–733

    Not in our library10.1101/gr.086660.108

32. 32.

    Friedman J. Hastie T. Tibshirani R., 2010 Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J. Stat. Softw. 33: 1–22 URL http://www.jstatsoft.org/v33/i01/

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    Gelman A. Carlin J. B. Stern H. S. Rubin D. B., 2003 Bayesian Data Analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    George E. I., 2000 The variable selection problem. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95: 1304–1308

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    Gianola D. Fernando R. L. Stella A., 2006 Genomic-assisted prediction of genetic value with semiparametric procedures. Genetics 173: 1761–1776

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.105.049510

36. 36.

    Gianola D. de los Campos G. Hill W. G. Manfredi E. Fernando R., 2009 Additive genetic variability and the bayesian alphabet. Genetics 183: 347–363

    Not in our library10.1534/genetics.109.103952

37. 37.

    Gianola, D., G. de los Campos, O. Gonzlez-Recio, N. Long, H. Okut et al., 2010 Statistical learning methods for genome-based analysis of quantitative traits. World Genetic Congress Applied to Livestock Production. Leipzig, Germany, CD-ROM Communication 0014.

    Not in our library

38. 38.
    Predicting complex quantitative traits with Bayesian neural networks: a case study with Jersey cows and wheat · 2011

    No notice
39. 39.

    Goodnight C. J., 2000 Quantitative trait loci and gene interaction: the quantitative genetics of metapopulation. Heredity 84: 587–598

    Not in our library10.1046/j.1365-2540.2000.00698.x

40. 40.

    Guo B. Beavis W. D., 2011 In silico genotyping of the maize nested association mapping population. Mol. Breed. 27: 107–113

    Not in our library10.1007/s11032-010-9503-4

Cited by papers we hold 7

• Data imputation and machine learning improve association analysis and genomic prediction for resistance to fish photobacteriosis in the gilthead sea bream · 2021
  Not checked
• Heterotic quantitative trait loci analysis and genomic prediction of seedling biomass-related traits in maize triple testcross populations · 2021
  Not checked
• LightGBM: accelerated genomically designed crop breeding through ensemble learning · 2021
  No notice
• Deep learning versus parametric and ensemble methods for genomic prediction of complex phenotypes · 2020
  No notice
• Genomic Prediction of Breeding Values Using a Subset of SNPs Identified by Three Machine Learning Methods · 2018
  No notice
• Integrating Crop Growth Models with Whole Genome Prediction through Approximate Bayesian Computation · 2015
  No notice
• Kernel-based whole-genome prediction of complex traits: a review · 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.