↓ Skip to main content

An efficient exact method to obtain GBLUP and single-step GBLUP when the genomic relationship matrix is singular

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics Selection Evolution, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
An efficient exact method to obtain GBLUP and single-step GBLUP when the genomic relationship matrix is singular
Published in
Genetics Selection Evolution, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12711-016-0260-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rohan L. Fernando, Hao Cheng, Dorian J. Garrick

Abstract

The mixed linear model employed for genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) includes the breeding value for each animal as a random effect that has a mean of zero and a covariance matrix proportional to the genomic relationship matrix ([Formula: see text]), where the inverse of [Formula: see text] is required to set up the usual mixed model equations (MME). When only some animals have genomic information, genomic predictions can be obtained by an extension known as single-step GBLUP, where the covariance matrix of breeding values is constructed by combining the pedigree-based additive relationship matrix with [Formula: see text]. The inverse of the combined relationship matrix can be obtained efficiently, provided [Formula: see text] can be inverted. In some livestock species, however, the number [Formula: see text] of animals with genomic information exceeds the number of marker covariates used to compute [Formula: see text], and this results in a singular [Formula: see text]. For such a case, an efficient and exact method to obtain GBLUP and single-step GBLUP is presented here. Exact methods are already available to obtain GBLUP when [Formula: see text] is singular, but these require working with large dense matrices. Another approach is to modify [Formula: see text] to make it nonsingular by adding a small value to all its diagonals or regressing it towards the pedigree-based relationship matrix. This, however, results in the inverse of [Formula: see text] being dense and difficult to compute as [Formula: see text] grows. The approach presented here recognizes that the number r of linearly independent genomic breeding values cannot exceed the number of marker covariates, and the mixed linear model used here for genomic prediction only fits these r linearly independent breeding values as random effects. The exact method presented here was compared to Apy-GBLUP and to Apy single-step GBLUP, both of which are approximate methods that use a modified [Formula: see text] that has a sparse inverse which can be computed efficiently. In a small numerical example, predictions from the exact approach and Apy were almost identical, but the MME from Apy had a condition number about 1000 times larger than that from the exact approach, indicating ill-conditioning of the MME from Apy. The practical application of exact SSGBLUP is not more difficult than implementation of Apy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 25%
Professor 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 8 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 67%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 8 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 November 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Genetics Selection Evolution
#550
of 822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,308
of 321,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics Selection Evolution
#4
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 822 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,049 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.