Biomedical subjects

Liviu R Totir

Publications and source records attributed to Liviu R Totir.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2007

Improved techniques for sampling complex pedigrees with the Gibbs sampler.

Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods have been widely used to overcome computational problems in linkage and segregation analyses. Many variants of this approach exist and are practiced; among the most popular is the Gibbs sampler. The Gibbs sampler is simple to implement but has (in its simplest form) mixing and reducibility problems; furthermore in order to initiate a Gibbs sampling chain we need a starting genotypic or allelic configuration which is consistent with the marker data in the pedigree and which has suitable weight in the joint distribution. We outline a procedure for finding such a configuration in pedigrees which have too many loci to allow for exact peeling. We also explain how this technique could be used to implement a blocking Gibbs sampler.

Algorithms↗

PubMedDate not supplied

A comparison of alternative methods to compute conditional genotype probabilities for genetic evaluation with finite locus models.

An increased availability of genotypes at marker loci has prompted the development of models that include the effect of individual genes. Selection based on these models is known as marker-assisted selection (MAS). MAS is known to be efficient especially for traits that have low heritability and non-additive gene action. BLUP methodology under non-additive gene action is not feasible for large inbred or crossbred pedigrees. It is easy to incorporate non-additive gene action in a finite locus model. Under such a model, the unobservable genotypic values can be predicted using the conditional mean of the genotypic values given the data. To compute this conditional mean, conditional genotype probabilities must be computed. In this study these probabilities were computed using iterative peeling, and three Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods--scalar Gibbs, blocking Gibbs, and a sampler that combines the Elston Stewart algorithm with iterative peeling (ESIP). The performance of these four methods was assessed using simulated data. For pedigrees with loops, iterative peeling fails to provide accurate genotype probability estimates for some pedigree members. Also, computing time is exponentially related to the number of loci in the model. For MCMC methods, a linear relationship can be maintained by sampling genotypes one locus at a time. Out of the three MCMC methods considered, ESIP, performed the best while scalar Gibbs performed the worst.

Genotype↗

PubMedDate not supplied

The effect of using approximate gametic variance covariance matrices on marker assisted selection by BLUP.

Under additive inheritance, the Henderson mixed model equations (HMME) provide an efficient approach to obtaining genetic evaluations by marker assisted best linear unbiased prediction (MABLUP) given pedigree relationships, trait and marker data. For large pedigrees with many missing markers, however, it is not feasible to calculate the exact gametic variance covariance matrix required to construct HMME. The objective of this study was to investigate the consequences of using approximate gametic variance covariance matrices on response to selection by MABLUP. Two methods were used to generate approximate variance covariance matrices. The first method (Method A) completely discards the marker information for individuals with an unknown linkage phase between two flanking markers. The second method (Method B) makes use of the marker information at only the most polymorphic marker locus for individuals with an unknown linkage phase. Data sets were simulated with and without missing marker data for flanking markers with 2, 4, 6, 8 or 12 alleles. Several missing marker data patterns were considered. The genetic variability explained by marked quantitative trait loci (MQTL) was modeled with one or two MQTL of equal effect. Response to selection by MABLUP using Method A or Method B were compared with that obtained by MABLUP using the exact genetic variance covariance matrix, which was estimated using 15,000 samples from the conditional distribution of genotypic values given the observed marker data. For the simulated conditions, the superiority of MABLUP over BLUP based only on pedigree relationships and trait data varied between 0.1% and 13.5% for Method A, between 1.7% and 23.8% for Method B, and between 7.6% and 28.9% for the exact method. The relative performance of the methods under investigation was not affected by the number of MQTL in the model.

Chromosome Mapping↗

PubMedDate not supplied

A study on the minimum number of loci required for genetic evaluation using a finite locus model.

For a finite locus model, Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods can be used to estimate the conditional mean of genotypic values given phenotypes, which is also known as the best predictor (BP). When computationally feasible, this type of genetic prediction provides an elegant solution to the problem of genetic evaluation under non-additive inheritance, especially for crossbred data. Successful application of MCMC methods for genetic evaluation using finite locus models depends, among other factors, on the number of loci assumed in the model. The effect of the assumed number of loci on evaluations obtained by BP was investigated using data simulated with about 100 loci. For several small pedigrees, genetic evaluations obtained by best linear prediction (BLP) were compared to genetic evaluations obtained by BP. For BLP evaluation, used here as the standard of comparison, only the first and second moments of the joint distribution of the genotypic and phenotypic values must be known. These moments were calculated from the gene frequencies and genotypic effects used in the simulation model. BP evaluation requires the complete distribution to be known. For each model used for BP evaluation, the gene frequencies and genotypic effects, which completely specify the required distribution, were derived such that the genotypic mean, the additive variance, and the dominance variance were the same as in the simulation model. For lowly heritable traits, evaluations obtained by BP under models with up to three loci closely matched the evaluations obtained by BLP for both purebred and crossbred data. For highly heritable traits, models with up to six loci were needed to match the evaluations obtained by BLP.

Animals↗