» Articles » PMID: 33995481

Accounting for Population Structure and Phenotypes From Relatives in Association Mapping for Farm Animals: A Simulation Study

Overview
Journal Front Genet
Date 2021 May 17
PMID 33995481
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Population structure or genetic relatedness should be considered in genome association studies to avoid spurious association. The most used methods for genome-wide association studies (GWAS) account for population structure but are limited to genotyped individuals with phenotypes. Single-step GWAS (ssGWAS) can use phenotypes from non-genotyped relatives; however, its ability to account for population structure has not been explored. Here we investigate the equivalence among ssGWAS, efficient mixed-model association expedited (EMMAX), and genomic best linear unbiased prediction GWAS (GBLUP-GWAS), and how they differ from the single-SNP analysis without correction for population structure (SSA-NoCor). We used simulated, structured populations that mimicked fish, beef cattle, and dairy cattle populations with 1040, 5525, and 1,400 genotyped individuals, respectively. Larger populations were also simulated that had up to 10-fold more genotyped animals. The genomes were composed by 29 chromosomes, each harboring one QTN, and the number of simulated SNPs was 35,000 for the fish and 65,000 for the beef and dairy cattle populations. Males and females were genotyped in the fish and beef cattle populations, whereas only males had genotypes in the dairy population. Phenotypes for a trait with heritability varying from 0.25 to 0.35 were available in both sexes for the fish population, but only for females in the beef and dairy cattle populations. In the latter, phenotypes of daughters were projected into genotyped sires (i.e., deregressed proofs) before applying EMMAX and SSA-NoCor. Although SSA-NoCor had the largest number of true positive SNPs among the four methods, the number of false negatives was two-fivefold that of true positives. GBLUP-GWAS and EMMAX had a similar number of true positives, which was slightly smaller than in ssGWAS, although the difference was not significant. Additionally, no significant differences were observed when deregressed proofs were used as pseudo-phenotypes in EMMAX compared to daughter phenotypes in ssGWAS for the dairy cattle population. Single-step GWAS accounts for population structure and is a straightforward method for association analysis when only a fraction of the population is genotyped and/or when phenotypes are available on non-genotyped relatives.

Citing Articles

Marker effect p-values for single-step GWAS with the algorithm for proven and young in large genotyped populations.

Leite N, Bermann M, Tsuruta S, Misztal I, Lourenco D Genet Sel Evol. 2024; 56(1):59.

PMID: 39174924 PMC: 11340074. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-024-00925-3.


Comparison of genomic prediction accuracy using different models for egg production traits in Taiwan country chicken.

Tu T, Lin C, Liu M, Hsu Z, Chen C Poult Sci. 2024; 103(10):104063.

PMID: 39098301 PMC: 11639322. DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2024.104063.


Genomic Regions Associated with Resistance to Gastrointestinal Parasites in Australian Merino Sheep.

Vera B, Navajas E, Peraza P, Carracelas B, Van Lier E, Ciappesoni G Genes (Basel). 2024; 15(7).

PMID: 39062624 PMC: 11276604. DOI: 10.3390/genes15070846.


Weighted single-step genome-wide association study for direct and maternal genetic effects associated with birth and weaning weights in sheep.

Khazaei-Koohpar H, Gholizadeh M, Hafezian S, Esmaeili-Fard S Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):13120.

PMID: 38849438 PMC: 11161479. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-63974-0.


Single-step genome-wide association study for susceptibility to and precocity of vegetative phase change in .

Quezada M, Giorello F, Da Silva C, Aguilar I, Balmelli G Front Plant Sci. 2023; 14:1124768.

PMID: 37465383 PMC: 10350686. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1124768.


References
1.
Gualdron Duarte J, Cantet R, Bates R, Ernst C, Raney N, Steibel J . Rapid screening for phenotype-genotype associations by linear transformations of genomic evaluations. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014; 15:246. PMC: 4112210. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-15-246. View

2.
Cappa E, Marco de Lima B, da Silva-Junior O, Garcia C, Mansfield S, Grattapaglia D . Improving genomic prediction of growth and wood traits in Eucalyptus using phenotypes from non-genotyped trees by single-step GBLUP. Plant Sci. 2019; 284:9-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2019.03.017. View

3.
Wiggans G, Cooper T, VanRaden P, Cole J . Technical note: adjustment of traditional cow evaluations to improve accuracy of genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci. 2011; 94(12):6188-93. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2011-4481. View

4.
Finno C, Aleman M, Higgins R, Madigan J, Bannasch D . Risk of false positive genetic associations in complex traits with underlying population structure: a case study. Vet J. 2014; 202(3):543-9. PMC: 4337777. DOI: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2014.09.013. View

5.
Sargolzaei M, Schenkel F . QMSim: a large-scale genome simulator for livestock. Bioinformatics. 2009; 25(5):680-1. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp045. View