» Articles » PMID: 23636739

Priors in Whole-genome Regression: the Bayesian Alphabet Returns

Overview
Journal Genetics
Specialty Genetics
Date 2013 May 3
PMID 23636739
Citations 203
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Whole-genome enabled prediction of complex traits has received enormous attention in animal and plant breeding and is making inroads into human and even Drosophila genetics. The term "Bayesian alphabet" denotes a growing number of letters of the alphabet used to denote various Bayesian linear regressions that differ in the priors adopted, while sharing the same sampling model. We explore the role of the prior distribution in whole-genome regression models for dissecting complex traits in what is now a standard situation with genomic data where the number of unknown parameters (p) typically exceeds sample size (n). Members of the alphabet aim to confront this overparameterization in various manners, but it is shown here that the prior is always influential, unless n ≫ p. This happens because parameters are not likelihood identified, so Bayesian learning is imperfect. Since inferences are not devoid of the influence of the prior, claims about genetic architecture from these methods should be taken with caution. However, all such procedures may deliver reasonable predictions of complex traits, provided that some parameters ("tuning knobs") are assessed via a properly conducted cross-validation. It is concluded that members of the alphabet have a room in whole-genome prediction of phenotypes, but have somewhat doubtful inferential value, at least when sample size is such that n ≪ p.

Citing Articles

Enhancing Genomic Prediction Accuracy of Reproduction Traits in Rongchang Pigs Through Machine Learning.

Wang J, Chai J, Chen L, Zhang T, Long X, Diao S Animals (Basel). 2025; 15(4).

PMID: 40003007 PMC: 11852217. DOI: 10.3390/ani15040525.


Revealing stable SNPs and genomic prediction insights across environments enhance breeding strategies of productivity, defense, and climate-adaptability traits in white spruce.

Cappa E, Chen C, Klutsch J, Sebastian-Azcona J, Ratcliffe B, Wei X Heredity (Edinb). 2025; .

PMID: 39939512 DOI: 10.1038/s41437-025-00747-z.


Optimizing fully-efficient two-stage models for genomic selection using open-source software.

Fernandez-Gonzalez J, Isidro Y Sanchez J Plant Methods. 2025; 21(1):9.

PMID: 39905443 PMC: 11796230. DOI: 10.1186/s13007-024-01318-9.


Performance of weighted genomic BLUP and Bayesian methods for Hanwoo carcass traits.

Haque M, Jang E, Lee H, Shin D, Jang J, Kim J Trop Anim Health Prod. 2025; 57(2):38.

PMID: 39873929 DOI: 10.1007/s11250-025-04293-y.


Epigenetic variation in light of population genetic practice.

Mueller S, Merondun J, Lecic S, Wolf J Nat Commun. 2025; 16(1):1028.

PMID: 39863592 PMC: 11762325. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-55989-6.


References
1.
Legarra A, Robert-Granie C, Croiseau P, Guillaume F, Fritz S . Improved Lasso for genomic selection. Genet Res (Camb). 2010; 93(1):77-87. DOI: 10.1017/S0016672310000534. View

2.
Karkkainen H, Sillanpaa M . Back to basics for Bayesian model building in genomic selection. Genetics. 2012; 191(3):969-87. PMC: 3389988. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.112.139014. View

3.
de Los Campos G, Gianola D, Rosa G . Reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces regression: a general framework for genetic evaluation. J Anim Sci. 2009; 87(6):1883-7. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2008-1259. View

4.
de Los Campos G, Gianola D, Allison D . Predicting genetic predisposition in humans: the promise of whole-genome markers. Nat Rev Genet. 2010; 11(12):880-6. DOI: 10.1038/nrg2898. View

5.
Brondum R, Su G, Lund M, Bowman P, Goddard M, Hayes B . Genome position specific priors for genomic prediction. BMC Genomics. 2012; 13:543. PMC: 3534589. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-543. View