GWABLUP: genome-wide association assisted best linear unbiased prediction of genetic values.

BACKGROUND: Since the very beginning of genomic selection, researchers investigated methods that improved upon SNP-BLUP (single nucleotide polymorphism best linear unbiased prediction). SNP-BLUP gives equal weight to all SNPs, whereas it is expected that many SNPs are not near causal variants and thus do not have substantial effects. A recent approach to remedy this is to use genome-wide association study (GWAS) findings and increase the weights of GWAS-top-SNPs in genomic predictions. Here, we employ a genome-wide approach to integrate GWAS results into genomic prediction, called GWABLUP. RESULTS: GWABLUP consists of the following steps: (1) performing a GWAS in the training data which results in likelihood ratios; (2) smoothing the likelihood ratios over the SNPs; (3) combining the smoothed likelihood ratio with the prior probability of SNPs having non-zero effects, which yields the posterior probability of the SNPs; (4) calculating a weighted genomic relationship matrix using the posterior probabilities as weights; and (5) performing genomic prediction using the weighted genomic relationship matrix. Using high-density genotypes and milk, fat, protein and somatic cell count phenotypes on dairy cows, GWABLUP was compared to GBLUP, GBLUP (topSNPs) with extra weights for GWAS top-SNPs, and BayesGC, i.e. a Bayesian variable selection model. The GWAS resulted in six, five, four, and three genome-wide significant peaks for milk, fat and protein yield and somatic cell count, respectively. GWABLUP genomic predictions were 10, 6, 7 and 1% more reliable than those of GBLUP for milk, fat and protein yield and somatic cell count, respectively. It was also more reliable than GBLUP (topSNPs) for all four traits, and more reliable than BayesGC for three of the traits. Although GWABLUP showed a tendency towards inflation bias for three of the traits, this was not statistically significant. In a multitrait analysis, GWABLUP yielded the highest accuracy for two of the traits. However, for SCC, which was relatively unrelated to the yield traits, including yield trait GWAS-results reduced the reliability compared to a single trait analysis. CONCLUSIONS: GWABLUP uses GWAS results to differentially weigh all the SNPs in a weighted GBLUP genomic prediction analysis. GWABLUP yielded up to 10% and 13% more reliable genomic predictions than GBLUP for single and multitrait analyses, respectively. Extension of GWABLUP to single-step analyses is straightforward.

Level-biases in estimated breeding values due to the use of different SNP panels over time in ssGBLUP.

BACKGROUND: The main aim of single-step genomic predictions was to facilitate optimal selection in populations consisting of both genotyped and non-genotyped individuals. However, in spite of intensive research, biases still occur, which make it difficult to perform optimal selection across groups of animals. The objective of this study was to investigate whether incomplete genotype datasets with errors could be a potential source of level-bias between genotyped and non-genotyped animals and between animals genotyped on different single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panels in single-step genomic predictions. RESULTS: Incomplete and erroneous genotypes of young animals caused biases in breeding values between groups of animals. Systematic noise or missing data for less than 1% of the SNPs in the genotype data had substantial effects on the differences in breeding values between genotyped and non-genotyped animals, and between animals genotyped on different chips. The breeding values of young genotyped individuals were biased upward, and the magnitude was up to 0.8 genetic standard deviations, compared with breeding values of non-genotyped individuals. Similarly, the magnitude of a small value added to the diagonal of the genomic relationship matrix affected the level of average breeding values between groups of genotyped and non-genotyped animals. Cross-validation accuracies and regression coefficients were not sensitive to these factors. CONCLUSIONS: Because, historically, different SNP chips have been used for genotyping different parts of a population, fine-tuning of imputation within and across SNP chips and handling of missing genotypes are crucial for reducing bias. Although all the SNPs used for estimating breeding values are present on the chip used for genotyping young animals, incompleteness and some genotype errors might lead to level-biases in breeding values.