Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28088170›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2017

Application of a Bayesian dominance model improves power in quantitative trait genome-wide association analysis.

Jörn Bennewitz, Christian Edel, Ruedi Fries, Theo H E Meuwissen, Robin Wellmann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. An approximate Bayesian significance test for genomic evaluations.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2018
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Non-additive Effects in Genomic Selection.Frontiers in genetics · 2018
    Review
  7. 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

5 authors.

Jörn BennewitzInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany. j.bennewitz@uni-hohenheim.de.ORCID 0000-0001-6450-1160
Christian EdelInstitute of Animal Breeding, Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture, 85580, Grub, Germany.
Ruedi FriesChair of Animal Breeding, Technical University of Munich, Liesel-Beckmann-Strasse 1, 85354, Freising, Germany.
Theo H E MeuwissenInstitute of Animal and Aquacultural Science, Norwegian University of Life Science, 1450, Aas, Norway.
Robin WellmannInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMulti-marker methods, which fit all markers simultaneously, were originally tailored for genomic selection purposes, but have proven to be useful also in association analyses, especially the so-called BayesC Bayesian methods. In a recent study, BayesD extended BayesC towards accounting for dominance effects and improved prediction accuracy and persistence in genomic selection. The current study investigated the power and precision of BayesC and BayesD in genome-wide association studies by means of stochastic simulations and applied these methods to a dairy cattle dataset.

methodsThe simulation protocol was designed to mimic the genetic architecture of quantitative traits as realistically as possible. Special emphasis was put on the joint distribution of the additive and dominance effects of causative mutations. Additive marker effects were estimated by BayesC and additive and dominance effects by BayesD. The dependencies between additive and dominance effects were modelled in BayesD by choosing appropriate priors. A sliding-window approach was used. For each window, the R. Fernando window posterior probability of association was calculated and this was used for inference purpose. The power to map segregating causal effects and the mapping precision were assessed for various marker densities up to full sequence information and various window sizes.

resultsPower to map a QTL increased with higher marker densities and larger window sizes. This held true for both methods. Method BayesD had improved power compared to BayesC. The increase in power was between -2 and 8% for causative genes that explained more than 2.5% of the genetic variance. In addition, inspection of the estimates of genomic window dominance variance allowed for inference about the magnitude of dominance at significant associations, which remains hidden in BayesC analysis. Mapping precision was not substantially improved by BayesD.

conclusionsBayesD improved power, but precision only slightly. Application of BayesD needs large datasets with genotypes and own performance records as phenotypes. Given the current efforts to establish cow reference populations in dairy cattle genomic selection schemes, such datasets are expected to be soon available, which will enable the application of BayesD for association mapping and genomic prediction purposes.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremGenome-Wide Association StudyModels, GeneticQuantitative Trait, HeritableAlgorithmsAnimalsCattleComputational BiologyComputer SimulationGenetic MarkersPolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait LociGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID28088170
PMCPMC5237573

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.