Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluation of Bagging approach versus GBLUP and Bayesian LASSO in genomic prediction

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study aimed to evaluate the predictive performance of bootstrap aggregating sampling technique (Bagging) in the context of genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) method versus GBLUP and Bayesian least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), in genomic prediction of livestock populations in different genetic architectures. For this purpose, different combinations of heritability (0.1 and 0.5), number of quantitative trait loci (QTL) (100 and 500) and distribution of QTL effects (normal, gamma, beta, Weibull and uniform) were considered. Also, a genome containing six chromosomes, 1 Morgan each, was simulated along which 1500 single-nucleotide polymorphism markers were evenly distributed. The prediction accuracies of the statistical models were obtained using the correlations between true (simulated) and predicted genomic breeding values. Results showed that, in different scenarios, the prediction accuracy using the GBLUP method was higher than that of the Bagging method (P > 0.05). When the heritability of the trait, the number of QTL and the distribution of QTL effects were 0.1, 500 and gamma, respectively, the prediction accuracy of Bagging and GBLUP indicated the highest similarity (P = 0.995). With low heritability (0.1) and low number of QTL (100), the maximum superiority of the Bagging method compared to the Bayesian LASSO method was obtained, which was statistically significant only when the distribution of QTL effects followed a gamma distribution (P < 0.05). For all three methods, the prediction accuracies decreased as the generation distance between the test and the reference generation increased (P < 0.001). In high heritability and when the QTL effects followed the Weibull distribution, all the three methods showed the highest prediction accuracy. In scenario of low heritability (0.1), low number of QTL (100) and gamma distribution for QTL effects, the difference between GBLUP and Bayesian LASSO methods as well as Bagging and Bayesian LASSO methods were statistically significant (P < 0.05. No significant differences were observed between the studied methods in other scenarios (P > 0.05). The results suggest that when the data are stable, the parametric (GBLUP and Bayesian LASSO) methods provide high prediction accuracy and it is not recommended to use the resampling (Bagging) method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdollahi-Arpanahi R., Morota G., Valente B. D., Kranis A., Rosa G. J. M. and Gianola D. 2015 Assessment of bagging GBLUP for whole-genome prediction of broiler chicken traits. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 132, 218–228.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bastiaansen J. W. M., Coster A., Calus M. P. L., van Arendonk J. A. M. and Bovenhuis H. 2012 Longterm response to genomic selection. effects of estimation method and reference population structure for different genetic architectures. Genet. Sel. Evol. 44, 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breiman L. 1996 Bagging predictors. Mach. Learn 24, 123–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daetwyler H. D., Pong-Wong R., Villanueva B. and Woolliams J. A. 2010 The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 185, 1021–1031.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Daetwyler H. D., Calus M. P. L., Pong-Wong R., de los Campos G. and Hickey J. M. 2013 Genomic prediction in animals and plants: simulation of data, validation, reporting, and benchmarking. Genetics 193, 347–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De los Campos G., Hickey J. M., Pong-Wong R., Daetwyler H. D. and Calus M. P. 2013 Whole-genome regression and prediction methods applied to plant and animal breeding. Genetics 193, 327–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efron B., Tibshirani R. J. 1993 An introduction to the bootstrap , Chapman, New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gianola D., Weigel K. A., Krämer N., Stella A. and Schön C. C. 2014 Enhancing genome-enabled prediction by bagging genomic BLUP. PLoS One 9, 1693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard M. 2009 Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetics 136, 245–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goddard M. and Hayes B. 2007 Genomic selection. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 124, 323–330.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard M. and Hayes B. 2009 Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes. Nat. Rev. Genet. 10, 381–391.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Habier D., Fernando R. and Dekkers J. 2007 The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics 177, 2389–2397.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes B., Bowman P., Chamberlain A. and Goddard M. 2009 Invited review: genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. J. Dairy Sci. 92, 433–443.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes B. J., Daetwyler H. D., Bowman P., Moser G., Tier B., Crump R. et al. 2010 Accuracy of genomic selection: comparing theory and results. Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed. Genet. 18, 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuwissen T., Hayes B. and Goddard M. 2001 Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819–1829.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mikshowsky A. A., Gianola G. and Weigel K. A. 2016 Improving reliability of genomic predictions for Jersey sires using bootstrap aggregation sampling. J. Dairy Sci. 99, 3632–3645.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mikshowsky A. A., Gianola G. and Weigel K. A. 2017 Assessing genomic prediction accuracy for Holstein sires using bootstrap aggregation sampling and leave-one-out cross validation. J. Dairy Sci. 100, 453–464.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nejati-Javaremi A., Smith C. and Gibson J. 1997 Effect of total allelic relationship on accuracy of evaluation and response to selection. J. Anim. Sci. 75, 1738–1745.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Park T. and Casella G. 2008 The bayesian lasso. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 103, 681–686.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Perez P. and De los Campos G. 2014 Genome-wide regression and prediction with the BGLR statistical package. Genetics 198, 483–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sahebalam H., Gholizadeh M., Hafezian H. and Farhadi A. 2019 Comparison of parametric, semiparametric and nonparametric methods in genomic evaluation. J. Genet. 98, 102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer L. 2006 Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 123, 218–223.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Technow F. 2013 hypred: Simulation of genomic data in applied genetics. Available at (http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/hypred/index.html).

  • Thomasen J. R., Sørensen A. C., Su G., Madsen P., Lund M. S. and Guldbrandtsen B. 2013 The admixed population structure in Danish Jersey challenges accurate genomic predictions. J. Anim. Sci. 91, 3105–3112.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Valle C., Nanculef R., Allende H. and Moraga C. 2007 Two bagging algorithms with coupled learners to encourage diversity. In Advances in intelligent data analysis VII, pp. 130-139. Springer.

  • VanRaden P. M. 2007 Genomic measures of relationship and inbreeding. Interbull Bull. 37, 33–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • VanRaden P. M. 2008 Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J. Dairy Sci. 91, 4414–4423.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamid Sahebalam.

Additional information

Corresponding editor: Arun Joshi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sahebalam, H., Gholizadeh, M., Hafezian, H. et al. Evaluation of Bagging approach versus GBLUP and Bayesian LASSO in genomic prediction. J Genet 101, 19 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12041-022-01358-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12041-022-01358-x

Keywords

Navigation