ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2017
Variable selection models for genomic selection using whole-genome sequence data and singular value decomposition.
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 14 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Enhancing wheat genomic prediction by a hybrid kernel approach.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Feature engineering of environmental covariates improves plant genomic-enabled prediction.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- A dimensionality-reduction genomic prediction method without direct inverse of the genomic relationship matrix for large genomic data.Plant cell reports · 2023Article
- Accelerated matrix-vector multiplications for matrices involving genotype covariates with applications in genomic prediction.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Genome-wide marker effect heterogeneity is associated with a large effect dormancy locus in winter malting barley.The plant genome · 2022Article
- Genetic mapping and genomic prediction of sclerotinia stem rot resistance to rapeseed/canola (Brassica napus L.) at seedling stage.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2022Article
- Genome-wide association mapping and genomic prediction for adult stage sclerotinia stem rot resistance in Brassica napus (L) under field environments.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- On the use of whole-genome sequence data for across-breed genomic prediction and fine-scale mapping of QTL.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021Article
- Accuracy of genomic BLUP when considering a genomic relationship matrix based on the number of the largest eigenvalues: a simulation study.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2019Article
- SNP variable selection by generalized graph domination.PloS one · 2019Article
- Deflated preconditioned conjugate gradient method for solving single-step BLUP models efficiently.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2018Article
- BGGE: A New Package for Genomic-Enabled Prediction Incorporating Genotype × Environment Interaction Models.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2018Article
- Large-scale genomic prediction using singular value decomposition of the genotype matrix.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNon-linear Bayesian genomic prediction models such as BayesA/B/C/R involve iteration and mostly Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms, which are computationally expensive, especially when whole-genome sequence (WGS) data are analyzed. Singular value decomposition (SVD) of the genotype matrix can facilitate genomic prediction in large datasets, and can be used to estimate marker effects and their prediction error variances (PEV) in a computationally efficient manner. Here, we developed, implemented, and evaluated a direct, non-iterative method for the estimation of marker effects for the BayesC genomic prediction model.
methodsThe BayesC model assumes a priori that markers have normally distributed effects with probability [Formula: see text] and no effect with probability (1 - [Formula: see text]). Marker effects and their PEV are estimated by using SVD and the posterior probability of the marker having a non-zero effect is calculated. These posterior probabilities are used to obtain marker-specific effect variances, which are subsequently used to approximate BayesC estimates of marker effects in a linear model. A computer simulation study was conducted to compare alternative genomic prediction methods, where a single reference generation was used to estimate marker effects, which were subsequently used for 10 generations of forward prediction, for which accuracies were evaluated.
resultsSVD-based posterior probabilities of markers having non-zero effects were generally lower than MCMC-based posterior probabilities, but for some regions the opposite occurred, resulting in clear signals for QTL-rich regions. The accuracies of breeding values estimated using SVD- and MCMC-based BayesC analyses were similar across the 10 generations of forward prediction. For an intermediate number of generations (2 to 5) of forward prediction, accuracies obtained with the BayesC model tended to be slightly higher than accuracies obtained using the best linear unbiased prediction of SNP effects (SNP-BLUP model). When reducing marker density from WGS data to 30 K, SNP-BLUP tended to yield the highest accuracies, at least in the short term.
conclusionsBased on SVD of the genotype matrix, we developed a direct method for the calculation of BayesC estimates of marker effects. Although SVD- and MCMC-based marker effects differed slightly, their prediction accuracies were similar. Assuming that the SVD of the marker genotype matrix is already performed for other reasons (e.g. for SNP-BLUP), computation times for the BayesC predictions were comparable to those of SNP-BLUP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.