| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
* Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR631 Station d’Amélioration Génétique des Animaux, BP 52627, 32326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
Department of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens 30602-2771
1 Corresponding author: andres.legarra{at}toulouse.inra.fr
Genome-wide genetic evaluation might involve the computation of BLUP-like estimations, potentially including thousands of covariates (i.e., single-nucleotide polymorphism markers) for each record. This implies dense Henderson’s mixed-model equations and considerable computing resources in time and storage, even for a few thousand records. Possible computing options include the type of storage and the solving algorithm. This work evaluated several computing options, including half-stored Cholesky decomposition, Gauss-Seidel, and 3 matrix-free strategies: Gauss-Seidel, Gauss-Seidel with residuals update, and preconditioned conjugate gradients. Matrix-free Gauss-Seidel with residuals update adjusts the residuals after computing the solution for each effect. This avoids adjusting the left-hand side of the equations by all other effects at every step of the algorithm and saves considerable computing time. Any Gauss-Seidel algorithm can easily be extended for variance component estimation by Markov chain-Monte Carlo. Let m and n be the number of records and markers, respectively. Computing time for Cholesky decomposition is proportional to n3. Computing times per round are proportional to mn2 in matrix-free Gauss-Seidel, to n2 for half-stored Gauss-Seidel, and to n and m for the rest of the algorithms. Algorithms were tested on a real mouse data set, which included 1,928 records and 10,946 single-nucleotide polymorphism markers. Computing times were in the order of a few minutes for Gauss-Seidel with residuals update and preconditioned conjugate gradients, more than 1 h for half-stored Gauss-Seidel, 2 h for Cholesky decomposition, and 4 d for matrix-free Gauss-Seidel. Preconditioned conjugate gradients was the fastest. Gauss-Seidel with residuals update would be the method of choice for variance component estimation as well as solving.
Key Words: genome-wide selection • genomic selection • genetic evaluation • marker-assisted selection
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Z. Zhang, E. S. Buckler, T. M. Casstevens, and P. J. Bradbury Software engineering the mixed model for genome-wide association studies on large samples Brief Bioinform, November 1, 2009; 10(6): 664 - 675. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Misztal, A. Legarra, and I. Aguilar Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information J Dairy Sci, September 1, 2009; 92(9): 4648 - 4655. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. J. Hayes, P. J. Bowman, A. J. Chamberlain, and M. E. Goddard Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges J Dairy Sci, February 1, 2009; 92(2): 433 - 443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. M. VanRaden Efficient Methods to Compute Genomic Predictions J Dairy Sci, November 1, 2008; 91(11): 4414 - 4423. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Legarra, C. Robert-Granie, E. Manfredi, and J.-M. Elsen Performance of Genomic Selection in Mice Genetics, September 1, 2008; 180(1): 611 - 618. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Tsuruta and I. Misztal Technical note: Computing options for genetic evaluation with a large number of genetic markers J Anim Sci, July 1, 2008; 86(7): 1514 - 1518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
