Advertisement

Molecular Breeding

, 35:99 | Cite as

Integrated nested Laplace approximation inference and cross-validation to tune variance components in estimation of breeding value

  • Boby Mathew
  • Jens Léon
  • Mikko J. Sillanpää
Article

Abstract

The main aim of this study was to compare a number of recently proposed Bayesian and frequentist statistical methods for the estimation of genetic parameters and to apply the cross-validation (CV) approach in order to tune the variance components in simulated and field plant breeding datasets. We were especially interested in whether the CV approach was capable of improving the prediction accuracy of breeding values which have been obtained using the residual (or restricted/reduced) maximum likelihood and Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation tools. We showed that the nonsampling-based Bayesian inference method of integrated nested Laplace approximation (INLA) can be used for rapid and accurate estimation of genetic parameters in linear mixed models with multiple random effects such as additive, dominance, and genotype-by-environment interaction effects. Moreover, we also compared the INLA estimates with results obtained using Markov chain Monte Carlo and restricted maximum likelihood methods. In other studies, K-fold CV is primarily used for comparing method performance; however, here we showed that the K-fold CV method can be used to tune genetic parameters and minimize the prediction error in the estimation of breeding value . We also compared the K-fold CV results with different generalized cross-validation methods which are much faster to compute. Analysis results obtained from field and simulated datasets are presented.

Keywords

Cross-validation Generalized cross-validation INLA Bayesian analysis Estimation of genetic parameters 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Håvard Rue and Anna Marie Holand for their help with the implementation of our model using the R-INLA package. We also thank Jarrod D. Hadfield for helping us with the use of the MCMCglmm package.

Supplementary material

11032_2015_248_MOESM1_ESM.r (2 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (R 1 KB)
11032_2015_248_MOESM2_ESM.r (2 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (R 1 KB)
11032_2015_248_MOESM3_ESM.r (2 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (R 2 KB)

References

  1. Bauer AM, Reetz TC, Léon J (2006) Estimation of breeding values of inbred lines using best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) and genetic similarities. Crop Sci 46(6):2685–2691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer A, Hoti F, Reetz T, Schuh W-D, Léon J, Sillanpää MJ (2009) Bayesian prediction of breeding values by accounting for genotype-by-environment interaction in self-pollinating crops. Genet Res 91(03):193–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blasco A (2001) The Bayesian controversy in animal breeding. J Anim Sci 79(8):2023–2046PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler D, Cullis BR, Gilmour A, Gogel B (2007) ASReml-R reference manual. Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  5. Craven P, Wahba G (1978) Smoothing noisy data with spline functions. Numer Math 31(4):377–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hadfield JD (2010) MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw 33(2):1–22Google Scholar
  7. Hanson W, Robinson H (eds) (1963) Statistical genetics and plant breeding. Publication 982. National Academy of Science–National Research Council, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J, Hastie T, Friedman J, Tibshirani R (2009) The elements of statistical learning, vol 2. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Henderson CR (1985) Best linear unbiased prediction of nonadditive genetic merits in noninbred populations. J Anim Sci 60(1):111–117Google Scholar
  10. Holand AM, Steinsland I, Martino S, Jensen H (2013) Animal models and integrated nested Laplace approximations. G3 (Bethesda) 3(8):1241–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liu W, Maurer HP, Reif JC, Melchinger A, Utz H, Tucker MR, Ranc N, Della Porta G, Würschum T (2013) Optimum design of family structure and allocation of resources in association mapping with lines from multiple crosses. Heredity 110(1):71–79CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Luan T, Woolliams JA, Lien S, Kent M, Svendsen M, Meuwissen TH (2009) The accuracy of genomic selection in Norwegian red cattle assessed by cross-validation. Genetics 183(3):1119–1126CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lynch M, Walsh B (1998) Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Assoc., SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  14. Mathew B, Bauer A, Koistinen P, Reetz T, Léon J, Sillanpää MJ (2012) Bayesian adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo estimation of genetic parameters. Heredity 109(4):235–245CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Patterson D, Thompson R (1971) Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58(3):545–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Piepho H, Möhring J, Melchinger A, Büchse A (2008) BLUP for phenotypic selection in plant breeding and variety testing. Euphytica 161(1–2):209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reverter A, Golden B, Bourdon R, Brinks J (1994) Method R variance components procedure: application on the simple breeding value model. J Anim Sci 72(9):2247–2253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Rue H, Held L (2004) Gaussian Markov random fields: theory and applications. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  19. Rue H, Martino S, Chopin N (2009) Approximate Bayesian inference for latent gaussian models by using integrated nested laplace approximations. J R Stat Soc Series B (Stat Methodol) 71(2):319–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saïdou A-A, Thuillet A-C, Couderc M, Mariac C, Vigouroux Y (2014) Association studies including genotype by environment interactions: prospects and limits. BMC Genet 15(1):3CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Schulthess A, Matus I, Schwember A (2013) Genotypic and environmental factors and their interactions determine semolina color of elite genotypes of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum) grown in different environments of Chile. Field Crops Res 149:234–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sorensen D, Gianola D (2002) Likelihood, Bayesian and MCMC methods in quantitative genetics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Steinsland I, Jensen H (2010) Utilizing Gaussian Markov random field properties of Bayesian animal models. Biometrics 66(3):763–771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Utz HF, Melchinger AE, Schön CC (2000) Bias and sampling error of the estimated proportion of genotypic variance explained by quantitative trait loci determined from experimental data in maize using cross validation and validation with independent samples. Genetics 154(4):1839–1849PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2009) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Waldmann P, Hallander J, Hoti F, Sillanpää MJ (2008) Efficient Markov Chain Monte Carlo implementation of Bayesian analysis of additive and dominance genetic variances in noninbred pedigrees. Genetics 179(2):1101–1112CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang C, Rutledge J, Gianola D (1993) Marginal inferences about variance components in a mixed linear model using Gibbs sampling. Genet Sel Evol 25(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wolak ME (2012) nadiv: an R package to create relatedness matrices for estimating non-additive genetic variances in animal models. Methods Ecol Evol 3(5):792–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Würschum T, Kraft T (2014) Cross-validation in association mapping and its relevance for the estimation of QTL parameters of complex traits. Heredity 112(4):463–468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Xu S (2006) Population genetics: separating nurture from nature in estimating heritability. Heredity 97(4):256–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boby Mathew
    • 1
  • Jens Léon
    • 1
  • Mikko J. Sillanpää
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute of Crop Science and Resource ConservationUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of OuluOuluFinland
  3. 3.Department of Biology and Biocenter OuluUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations