↓ Skip to main content

Genomic prediction with epistasis models: on the marker-coding-dependent performance of the extended GBLUP and properties of the categorical epistasis model (CE)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Genomic prediction with epistasis models: on the marker-coding-dependent performance of the extended GBLUP and properties of the categorical epistasis model (CE)
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-016-1439-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johannes W. R. Martini, Ning Gao, Diercles F. Cardoso, Valentin Wimmer, Malena Erbe, Rodolfo J. C. Cantet, Henner Simianer

Abstract

Epistasis marker effect models incorporating products of marker values as predictor variables in a linear regression approach (extended GBLUP, EGBLUP) have been assessed as potentially beneficial for genomic prediction, but their performance depends on marker coding. Although this fact has been recognized in literature, the nature of the problem has not been thoroughly investigated so far. We illustrate how the choice of marker coding implicitly specifies the model of how effects of certain allele combinations at different loci contribute to the phenotype, and investigate coding-dependent properties of EGBLUP. Moreover, we discuss an alternative categorical epistasis model (CE) eliminating undesired properties of EGBLUP and show that the CE model can improve predictive ability. Finally, we demonstrate that the coding-dependent performance of EGBLUP offers the possibility to incorporate prior experimental information into the prediction method by adapting the coding to already available phenotypic records on other traits. Based on our results, for EGBLUP, a symmetric coding {-1,1} or {-1,0,1} should be preferred, whereas a standardization using allele frequencies should be avoided. Moreover, CE can be a valuable alternative since it does not possess the undesired theoretical properties of EGBLUP. However, which model performs best will depend on characteristics of the data and available prior information. Data from previous experiments can for instance be incorporated into the marker coding of EGBLUP.

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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 30%
Researcher 15 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 58%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Computer Science 2 3%
Mathematics 2 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 19 25%
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 24 August 2017.
All research outputs
#20,444,703
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#6,887
of 7,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#356,584
of 421,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#114
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 421,731 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.