Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Invited review: efficient computation strategies in genomic selection

  • I. Misztal (a1) and A. Legarra (a2)
Abstract

The purpose of this study is review and evaluation of computing methods used in genomic selection for animal breeding. Commonly used models include SNP BLUP with extensions (BayesA, etc), genomic BLUP (GBLUP) and single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP). These models are applied for genomewide association studies (GWAS), genomic prediction and parameter estimation. Solving methods include finite Cholesky decomposition possibly with a sparse implementation, and iterative Gauss–Seidel (GS) or preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCG), the last two methods possibly with iteration on data. Details are provided that can drastically decrease some computations. For SNP BLUP especially with sampling and large number of SNP, the only choice is GS with iteration on data and adjustment of residuals. If only solutions are required, PCG by iteration on data is a clear choice. A genomic relationship matrix (GRM) has limited dimensionality due to small effective population size, resulting in infinite number of generalized inverses of GRM for large genotyped populations. A specific inverse called APY requires only a small fraction of GRM, is sparse and can be computed and stored at a low cost for millions of animals. With APY inverse and PCG iteration, GBLUP and ssGBLUP can be applied to any population. Both tools can be applied to GWAS. When the system of equations is sparse but contains dense blocks, a recently developed package for sparse Cholesky decomposition and sparse inversion called YAMS has greatly improved performance over packages where such blocks were treated as sparse. With YAMS, GREML and possibly single-step GREML can be applied to populations with >50 000 genotyped animals. From a computational perspective, genomic selection is becoming a mature methodology.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Invited review: efficient computation strategies in genomic selection
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Invited review: efficient computation strategies in genomic selection
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Invited review: efficient computation strategies in genomic selection
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Corresponding author
E-mail: Ignacy@uga.edu
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

I Aguilar , I Misztal , DL Johnson , A Legarra , S Tsuruta and TJ Lawlor 2010. A unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 743752.

I Aguilar , I Misztal , A Legarra and S Tsuruta 2011. Efficient computation of genomic relationship matrix and other matrices used in single-step evaluation. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 128, 422428.

OF Christensen and MS Lund 2010. Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genetics Selection Evolution 42, 2.

JJ Colleau 2002. An indirect approach to the extensive calculation of relationship coefficients. Genetics Selection Evolution 34, 409421.

P Faux and N Gengler 2013. Inversion of a part of the numerator relationship matrix using pedigree information. Genetics Selection Evolution 45, 45.

RL Fernando , JCM Dekkers and DJ Garrick 2014. A class of Bayesian methods to combine large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals for whole-genome analyses. Genetics Selection Evolution 46, 50.

BO Fragomeni , DAL Lourenco , S Tsuruta , Y Masuda , I Aguilar , A Legarra , TJ Lawlor and I Misztal 2015. Hot topic: use of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) with a large number of genotypes. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 40904094.

D Gianola , G de los Campos , WG Hill , E Manfredi and RL Fernando 2009. Additive genetic variability and the Bayesian alphabet. Genetics 183, 347363.

A Legarra , I Aguilar and I Misztal 2009. A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 46564663.

A Legarra , OF Christensen , I Aguilar and I Misztal 2014. Single step, a general approach for genomic selection. Livestock Science 166, 5465.

A Legarra and V Ducrocq 2012. Computational strategies for national integration of phenotypic, genomic, and pedigree data in single-step best linear unbiased prediction. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 46294645.

A Legarra and I Misztal 2008. Computing strategies in genome-wide selection. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 360366.

Z Liu , ME Goddard , F Reinhardt and R Reents 2014. A single-step genomic model with direct estimation of marker effects. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 58335850.

DAL Lourenco , S Tsuruta , BO Fragomeni , Y Masuda , I Aguilar , A Legarra , JK Bertrand , TS Amen , L Wang , DW Moser and I Misztal 2015. Genetic evaluation using single-step genomic BLUP in American Angus. Journal of Animal Science 93, 26532662.

Y Masuda , I Misztal , S Tsuruta , A Legarra , I Aguilar , DAL Lourenco , B Fragomeni and TL Lawlor 2016. Implementation of genomic recursions in single-step genomic BLUP for US Holsteins with a large number of genotyped animals. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 19681974.

Y Masuda , S Tsuruta , I Aguilar and I Misztal 2015. Technical note: acceleration of sparse operations for average-information REML analyses with supernodal methods and sparse-storage refinements. Journal of Animal Science 93, 46704674.

THE Meuwissen , M Svendsen , T Solberg and J Ødegård 2015. Genomic predictions based on animal models using genotype imputation on a national scale in Norwegian Red cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 47, 79.

I Misztal 2016. Inexpensive computation of the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix in populations with small effective population size. Genetics 202, 401409.

I Misztal and D Gianola 1987. Indirect solution of mixed model equations. Journal of Dairy Science 70, 716723.

I Misztal , A Legarra and I Aguilar 2009. Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 46484655.

I Misztal , A Legarra and I Aguilar 2014. Using recursion to compute the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 39433952.

I Misztal and M Perez-Enciso 1993. Sparse matrix inversion for restricted maximum likelihood estimation of variance components by expectation-maximization. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 14791483.

RA Mrode 2014. Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values, 2nd and 3rd edition. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.

LR Schaeffer 2006. Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 123, 218223.

LR Schaeffer and BW Kennedy 1986. Computing strategies for solving mixed model equations. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 575579.

I Strandén and DJ Garrick 2009. Technical note: derivation of equivalent computing algorithms for genomic predictions and reliabilities of animal merit. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 29712975.

I Strandén and OF Christensen 2011. Allele coding in genomic evaluation. Genetics Selection Evolution 43, 25.

I Strandén and M Lidauer 1999. Solving large mixed linear models using preconditioned conjugate gradient iteration. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 27792787.

X Sun , L Qu , DJ Garrick , JCM Dekkers and RL Fernando 2012. A fast EM algorithm for BayesA-like prediction of genomic breeding values. PLoS One 7, e49157.

S Tsuruta , I Misztal and I Stranden 2001. Use of the preconditioned conjugate gradient algorithm as a generic solver for mixed-model equations in animal breeding applications. Journal of Animal Science 79, 11661172.

PM VanRaden 2008. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 44144423.

PM VanRaden , CP Van Tassell , GR Wiggans , TS Sonstegard , RD Schnabel , JF Taylor and FS Schenkel 2009. Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1624.

H Wang , I Misztal , I Aguilar , A Legarra and WM Muir 2012. Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes. Genetics Research 94, 7383.

H Wang , I Misztal and A Legarra 2014. Differences between genomic-based and pedigree-based relationships in a chicken population, as a function of quality control and pedigree links among individuals. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 131, 445451.

Z Zhang , J Liu , X Ding , P Bijma , DJ de Koning and Q Zhang 2010. Best linear unbiased prediction of genomic breeding values using a trait-specific marker-derived relationship matrix. PLoS One 5, e12648.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

animal
  • ISSN: 1751-7311
  • EISSN: 1751-732X
  • URL: /core/journals/animal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 32
Total number of PDF views: 368 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 451 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 21st November 2016 - 26th April 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.