↓ Skip to main content

A fast and efficient Gibbs sampler for BayesB in whole-genome analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics Selection Evolution, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 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
A fast and efficient Gibbs sampler for BayesB in whole-genome analyses
Published in
Genetics Selection Evolution, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12711-015-0157-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

In whole-genome analyses, the number p of marker covariates is often much larger than the number n of observations. Bayesian multiple regression models are widely used in genomic selection to address this problem of [Formula: see text] The primary difference between these models is the prior assumed for the effects of the covariates. Usually in the BayesB method, a Metropolis-Hastings (MH) algorithm is used to jointly sample the marker effect and the locus-specific variance, which may make BayesB computationally intensive. In this paper, we show how the Gibbs sampler without the MH algorithm can be used for the BayesB method. We consider three different versions of the Gibbs sampler to sample the marker effect and locus-specific variance for each locus. Among the Gibbs samplers that were considered, the most efficient sampler is about 2.1 times as efficient as the MH algorithm proposed by Meuwissen et al. and 1.7 times as efficient as that proposed by Habier et al. The three Gibbs samplers presented here were twice as efficient as Metropolis-Hastings samplers and gave virtually the same results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 8%
Denmark 1 4%
Unknown 23 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 27%
Professor 5 19%
Student > Master 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 3 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 81%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Unknown 3 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Genetics Selection Evolution
#523
of 822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,884
of 291,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics Selection Evolution
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 291,148 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 57% of its contemporaries.