↓ Skip to main content

A Fast EM Algorithm for BayesA-Like Prediction of Genomic Breeding Values

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 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 EM Algorithm for BayesA-Like Prediction of Genomic Breeding Values
Published in
PLOS ONE, November 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049157
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaochen Sun, Long Qu, Dorian J. Garrick, Jack C. M. Dekkers, Rohan L. Fernando

Abstract

Prediction accuracies of estimated breeding values for economically important traits are expected to benefit from genomic information. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panels used in genomic prediction are increasing in density, but the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) estimation of SNP effects can be quite time consuming or slow to converge when a large number of SNPs are fitted simultaneously in a linear mixed model. Here we present an EM algorithm (termed "fastBayesA") without MCMC. This fastBayesA approach treats the variances of SNP effects as missing data and uses a joint posterior mode of effects compared to the commonly used BayesA which bases predictions on posterior means of effects. In each EM iteration, SNP effects are predicted as a linear combination of best linear unbiased predictions of breeding values from a mixed linear animal model that incorporates a weighted marker-based realized relationship matrix. Method fastBayesA converges after a few iterations to a joint posterior mode of SNP effects under the BayesA model. When applied to simulated quantitative traits with a range of genetic architectures, fastBayesA is shown to predict GEBV as accurately as BayesA but with less computing effort per SNP than BayesA. Method fastBayesA can be used as a computationally efficient substitute for BayesA, especially when an increasing number of markers bring unreasonable computational burden or slow convergence to MCMC approaches.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 5%
Germany 1 2%
Poland 1 2%
Unknown 38 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 21%
Professor 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 71%
Mathematics 6 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Unknown 4 10%
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 10 November 2012.
All research outputs
#20,172,971
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#172,801
of 193,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,814
of 182,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#4,067
of 4,829 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 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 193,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. 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 182,177 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 4,829 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.