English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Genomic best linear-unbiased prediction (GBLUP) assumes equal variance for all marker effects, which is suitable for traits that conform to the infinitesimal model. For traits controlled by major genes, Bayesian methods with shrinkage priors or genome-wide association study (GWAS) methods can be used to identify causal variants effectively. The information from Bayesian/GWAS methods can be used to construct the weighted genomic relationship matrix (G). However, it remains unclear which methods perform best for traits varying in genetic architecture. Therefore, we developed several methods to optimize the performance of weighted GBLUP and compare them with other available methods using simulated and real data sets. First, two types of methods (marker effects with local shrinkage or normal prior) were used to obtain test statistics and estimates for each marker effect. Second, three weighted G matrices were constructed based on the marker information from the first step: (1) the genomic-feature-weighted G, (2) the estimated marker-variance-weighted G, and (3) the absolute value of the estimated marker-effect-weighted G. Following the above process, six different weighted GBLUP methods (local shrinkage/normal-prior GF/EV/AEWGBLUP) were proposed for genomic prediction. Analyses with both simulated and real data demonstrated that these options offer flexibility for optimizing the weighted GBLUP for traits with a broad spectrum of genetic architectures. The advantage of weighting methods over GBLUP in terms of accuracy was trait dependant, ranging from 14.8% to marginal for simulated traits and from 44% to marginal for real traits. Local-shrinkage prior EVWGBLUP is superior for traits mainly controlled by loci of a large effect. Normal-prior AEWGBLUP performs well for traits mainly controlled by loci of moderate effect. For traits controlled by some loci with large effects (explain 25-50% genetic variance) and a range of loci with small effects, GFWGBLUP has advantages. In conclusion, the optimal weighted GBLUP method for genomic selection should take both the genetic architecture and number of QTLs of traits into consideration carefully.

Efficient weighting methods for genomic best linear-unbiased prediction (BLUP) adapted to the genetic architectures of quantitative traits