title: Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Two bayesian methods, BayesCπ and BayesDπ, were developed for genomic prediction to address the drawback of BayesA and BayesB regarding the impact of prior hyperparameters and treat the prior probability π that a SNP has zero effect as unknown. The methods were compared in terms of inference of the number of QTL and accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs), using simulated scenarios and real data from North American Holstein bulls.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Estimates of π from BayesCπ, in contrast to BayesDπ, were sensitive to the number of simulated QTL and training data size, and provide information about genetic architecture. Milk yield and fat yield have QTL with larger effects than protein yield and somatic cell score. The drawback of BayesA and BayesB did not impair the accuracy of GEBVs. Accuracies of alternative Bayesian methods were similar. BayesA was a good choice for GEBV with the real data. Computing time was shorter for BayesCπ than for BayesDπ, and longest for our implementation of BayesA.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Collectively, accounting for computing effort, uncertainty as to the number of QTL (which affects the GEBV accuracy of alternative methods), and fundamental interest in the number of QTL underlying quantitative traits, we believe that BayesCπ has merit for routine applications.
authors: Department of Animal Science and Center for Integrated Animal Genomics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA. dhabier@gmail.com
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Habier
authors: Rohan L
authors: RL
authors: Fernando
authors: Kadir
authors: K
authors: Kizilkaya
authors: Dorian J
authors: DJ
authors: Garrick
references: Biometrics. 1975 Jun;31(2):423-47
references: 1174616
references: Genetics. 2010 Jul;185(3):1021-31
references: 20407128
references: Genetics. 2009 Sep;183(1):347-63
references: 19620397
references: Genetics. 1969 Sep;63(1):229-38
references: 5365295
references: Genetics. 2007 Dec;177(4):2389-97
references: 18073436
references: J Dairy Sci. 2009 Feb;92(2):433-43
references: 19164653
references: J Dairy Sci. 2009 Jan;92(1):16-24
references: 19109259
references: Genetics. 2001 Apr;157(4):1819-29
references: 11290733
references: Genet Sel Evol. 2009 Dec 31;41:55
references: 20043827
references: Genet Sel Evol. 2010 Feb 19;42:5
references: 20170500
references: J Dairy Sci. 2008 Nov;91(11):4414-23
references: 18946147
references: Genetics. 2009 May;182(1):343-53
references: 19299339
references: Brief Funct Genomics. 2010 Mar;9(2):166-77
references: 20156985
references: Genet Sel Evol. 2009 Nov 24;41:51
references: 19930712
references: Genetics. 2009 May;182(1):355-64
references: 19299342