Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25926276›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2015

A computationally efficient algorithm for genomic prediction using a Bayesian model.

Tingting Wang, Yi-Ping Phoebe Chen, Michael E Goddard, Theo H E Meuwissen, Kathryn E Kemper, Ben J Hayes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Efficient large-scale genomic prediction in approximate genome-based kernel model.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Tingting WangFaculty of Science, Technology and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia. t22wang@students.latrobe.edu.au.
Yi-Ping Phoebe ChenFaculty of Science, Technology and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia. phoebe.chen@latrobe.edu.au.
Michael E GoddardBiosciences Research Division, Department of Primary Industries, Bundoora, Melbourne, VIC, 3083, Australia. Mike.Goddard@depi.vic.gov.au.
Theo H E MeuwissenInstitute Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Science, Box 5003, As, N1432, Norway. theo.meuwissen@nmbu.no.
Kathryn E KemperFaculty of Veterinary and Agricultural Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, 3052, Australia. kathryn.kemper@depi.vic.gov.au.
Ben J HayesFaculty of Science, Technology and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, 3086, Australia. Ben.Hayes@depi.vic.gov.au.
AgriBio · AULa Trobe University · AUNorwegian University of Life Sciences · NOUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic prediction of breeding values from dense single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) genotypes is used for livestock and crop breeding, and can also be used to predict disease risk in humans. For some traits, the most accurate genomic predictions are achieved with non-linear estimates of SNP effects from Bayesian methods that treat SNP effects as random effects from a heavy tailed prior distribution. These Bayesian methods are usually implemented via Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) schemes to sample from the posterior distribution of SNP effects, which is computationally expensive. Our aim was to develop an efficient expectation-maximisation algorithm (emBayesR) that gives similar estimates of SNP effects and accuracies of genomic prediction than the MCMC implementation of BayesR (a Bayesian method for genomic prediction), but with greatly reduced computation time.

methodsemBayesR is an approximate EM algorithm that retains the BayesR model assumption with SNP effects sampled from a mixture of normal distributions with increasing variance. emBayesR differs from other proposed non-MCMC implementations of Bayesian methods for genomic prediction in that it estimates the effect of each SNP while allowing for the error associated with estimation of all other SNP effects. emBayesR was compared to BayesR using simulated data, and real dairy cattle data with 632 003 SNPs genotyped, to determine if the MCMC and the expectation-maximisation approaches give similar accuracies of genomic prediction.

resultsWe were able to demonstrate that allowing for the error associated with estimation of other SNP effects when estimating the effect of each SNP in emBayesR improved the accuracy of genomic prediction over emBayesR without including this error correction, with both simulated and real data. When averaged over nine dairy traits, the accuracy of genomic prediction with emBayesR was only 0.5% lower than that from BayesR. However, emBayesR reduced computing time up to 8-fold compared to BayesR.

conclusionsThe emBayesR algorithm described here achieved similar accuracies of genomic prediction to BayesR for a range of simulated and real 630 K dairy SNP data. emBayesR needs less computing time than BayesR, which will allow it to be applied to larger datasets.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBreedingAnimalsBayes TheoremCattleGenomicsMaleModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalPolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID25926276
PMCPMC4415253
OpenAlexW2128412032

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.