Assessment of the performance of hidden Markov models for imputation in animal breeding

dc.contributor.author
Whalen, Andrew
dc.contributor.author
Gorjanc, Gregor
dc.contributor.author
Ros Freixedes, Roger
dc.contributor.author
Hickey, John M.
dc.date.accessioned
2024-12-05T21:46:09Z
dc.date.available
2024-12-05T21:46:09Z
dc.date.issued
2020-02-03T14:00:31Z
dc.date.issued
2020-02-03T14:00:31Z
dc.date.issued
2018-09-17
dc.date.issued
2020-02-03T14:00:31Z
dc.identifier
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-018-0416-8
dc.identifier
0999-193X
dc.identifier
http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/67928
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/67928
dc.description.abstract
Background: In this paper, we review the performance of various hidden Markov model‐based imputation methods in animal breeding populations. Traditionally, pedigree and heuristic‐based imputation methods have been used for imputation in large animal populations due to their computational e ciency, scalability, and accuracy. Recent advances in the area of human genetics have increased the ability of probabilistic hidden Markov model methods to perform accurate phasing and imputation in large populations. These advances may enable these methods to be use‐ ful for routine use in large animal populations, particularly in populations where pedigree information is not readily available. Methods: To test the performance of hidden Markov model‐based imputation, we evaluated the accuracy and com‐ putational cost of several methods in a series of simulated populations and a real animal population without using a pedigree. First, we tested single‐step (diploid) imputation, which performs both phasing and imputation. Second, we tested pre‐phasing followed by haploid imputation. Overall, we used four available diploid imputation methods (fast‐ PHASE, Beagle v4.0, IMPUTE2, and MaCH), three phasing methods, (SHAPEIT2, HAPI‐UR, and Eagle2), and three haploid imputation methods (IMPUTE2, Beagle v4.1, and Minimac3). Results: We found that performing pre‐phasing and haploid imputation was faster and more accurate than diploid imputation. In particular, among all the methods tested, pre‐phasing with Eagle2 or HAPI‐UR and imputing with Mini‐ mac3 or IMPUTE2 gave the highest accuracies with both simulated and real data. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that hidden Markov model‐based imputation algorithms are an accu‐ rate and computationally feasible approach for performing imputation without a pedigree when pre‐phasing and haploid imputation are used. Of the algorithms tested, the combination of Eagle2 and Minimac3 gave the highest accuracy across the simulated and real datasets.
dc.description.abstract
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the BBSRC ISPG to The Roslin Institute Grant No. BB/J004235/1, from Genus PLC and from Grant Nos. BB/M009254/1, BB/L020726/1, BB/N004736/1, BB/N004728/1, BB/L020467/1, BB/N006178/1 and Medical Research Council (MRC) Grant No. MR/M000370/1.
dc.format
application/pdf
dc.language
eng
dc.publisher
BMC (part of Springer Nature)
dc.relation
Reproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-018-0416-8
dc.relation
Genetics Selection Evolution, 2018, vol. 50, num. 44
dc.rights
cc-by (c) Whalen, Andrew et al., 2018
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.title
Assessment of the performance of hidden Markov models for imputation in animal breeding
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion


Fitxers en aquest element

FitxersGrandàriaFormatVisualització

No hi ha fitxers associats a aquest element.

Aquest element apareix en la col·lecció o col·leccions següent(s)