Abstract

Parametric and nonparametric methods have been developed for purposes of predicting phenotypes. These methods are based on retrospective analyses of empirical data consisting of genotypic and phenotypic scores. Recent reports have indicated that parametric methods are unable to predict phenotypes of traits with known epistatic genetic architectures. Herein, we review parametric methods including least squares regression, ridge regression, Bayesian ridge regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), Bayesian LASSO, best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP), Bayes A, Bayes B, Bayes C, and Bayes Cπ. We also review nonparametric methods including Nadaraya-Watson estimator, reproducing kernel Hilbert space, support vector machine regression, and neural networks. We assess the relative merits of these 14 methods in terms of accuracy and mean squared error (MSE) using simulated genetic architectures consisting of completely additive or two-way epistatic interactions in an F2 population derived from crosses of inbred lines. Each simulated genetic architecture explained either 30% or 70% of the phenotypic variability. The greatest impact on estimates of accuracy and MSE was due to genetic architecture. Parametric methods were unable to predict phenotypic values when the underlying genetic architecture was based entirely on epistasis. Parametric methods were slightly better than nonparametric methods for additive genetic architectures. Distinctions among parametric methods for additive genetic architectures were incremental. Heritability, i.e., proportion of phenotypic variability, had the second greatest impact on estimates of accuracy and MSE.

Highlights

  • Parametric and nonparametric methods have been developed for purposes of predicting phenotypes

  • The development of DNA markers in the 1980s was an important step in the process of identifying DNA segments that are statistically associated with quantitative traits, i.e., quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping and for markerassisted selection (MAS)

  • We review linear least squares regression, penalized ridge regression, Bayes ridge regression, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), and Bayes LASSO methods, best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP), and some Bayesian alternatives used in genomic selection (GS) (Bayes A, Bayes B, Bayes C, and Bayes Cp)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Parametric and nonparametric methods have been developed for purposes of predicting phenotypes. Most simulation studies of genomic selection (GS) methods (Meuwissen et al 2001) have considered genetic architectures in which the number and relative magnitudes of quantitative trait loci (QTL) have varied. With development of low-cost high-throughput marker technologies, it has become possible to estimate epistatic interactions based on genotypic values for all possible pairwise genotypes in genome-wide association studies, searches for higher-order interactions are still limited by experimental and computational resources (Moore and Williams 2009) These studies are beginning to reveal that epistasis is not the exception, but rather the most prevalent form of genetic architecture for quantitative traits (Flint and Mackay 2009; Huang et al 2012). It is often impossible to distinguish among plants with all desirable alleles and the plants with some of the desirable alleles (Huang et al 1997)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call