[en] Some genomic evaluation models require creation and inversion of a genomic relationship matrix (G). As the number of genotyped animals increases, G becomes larger and thus requires more time for inversion. A single-step genomic evaluation also requires inversion of the part of the pedigree relationship matrix for genotyped animals (A22). A strategy was developed to provide an approximation of the inverse of G (G− 1) that may also be applied to the inverse of A22 (A22 −1). The algorithm proceeds by creation of an incomplete Cholesky factorization (T−1) of G−1. For this purpose, a genomic relationship threshold determines whether 2 animals are closely related. For any animal, the sparsity pattern of the corresponding line in T−1 will thus gather elements corresponding to all close relatives of that animal. Any line of T−1 is filled in with resulting estimators of the least-squares regression of genomic relationships between close relatives on genomic relationship between the animal considered and those close relatives. The G−1 was computed as the matrix product (T-1)' D-1 T-1 where D−1 is a diagonal matrix. Then, T-1G(T-1)' resulted in a new matrix that is close to diagonal and also needs to be inverted. The inverse of that matrix was approximated with the same decomposition as for approximation of the inverse of G (G−1) , and the procedure was repeated in successive rounds of recursion until a matrix was obtained that was close enough to diagonal to be inverted element by element. Two applications of the approximation algorithm were tested in a single-step genomic evaluation of US Holstein final score, and correlation coefficients between estimated breeding values based on either real or approximated G−1 were compared. Approximations came closer to G−1 as the number of recursion rounds increased. Approximations were even more accurate and expected to be faster for A22. Timesaving strategies are needed to reduce the computing time required for the algorithm.
Disciplines :
Genetics & genetic processes
Author, co-author :
Faux, Pierre ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Sciences agronomiques > Zootechnie
Gengler, Nicolas ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Sciences agronomiques > Zootechnie
Misztal, Ignacy
Language :
English
Title :
A recursive algorithm for decomposition and creation of the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix
Publication date :
2012
Journal title :
Journal of Dairy Science
ISSN :
0022-0302
eISSN :
1525-3198
Publisher :
American Dairy Science Association, United States - Illinois
Aguilar I., Misztal I., Legarra A., Tsuruta S. Efficient computation of the genomic relationship matrix and other matrices used in single-step evaluation. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2010.00912.x.
Benzi M., Tuma M. A comparative study of sparse approximate inverse preconditioners. Appl. Numer. Math. 1999, 30:305-340.
Bömcke E., Soyeurt H., Szydlowski M., Gengler N. New method to combine molecular and pedigree relationships. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89:972-978.
Christensen O.F., Lund M.S. Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2010, 42:2.
Colleau J.-J. An indirect approach to the extensive calculation of relationship coefficients. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2002, 34:409-421.
Forni S., Aguilar I., Misztal I. Different genomic relationship matrices for single-step analysis using phenotypic, pedigree and genomic information. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2011, 43:1.
Hayes B.J., Bowman P.J., Chamberlain A.C., Verbyla K., Goddard M.E. Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multi-breed dairy cattle populations. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2009, 41:51.
Henderson C.R. A simple method for computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix used in prediction of breeding values. Biometrics 1976, 32:69-83.
Kolotilina L.Y., Yeremin A.Y. Factorized sparse approximate inverse preconditioning I. Theory. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 1993, 14:45-58.
Lawson C.L., Hanson R.J., Kincaid D., Krogh F.T. Basic linear algebra subprograms for FORTRAN usage. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 1979, 5:308-323.
Legarra A., Aguilar I., Misztal I. A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92:4656-4663.
Meuwissen T.H.E., Hayes B.J., Goddard M.E. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001, 157:1819-1829.
Misztal I., Legarra A., Aguilar I. Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92:4648-4655.
Muir W.M. Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2007, 124:342-355.
Quaas R.L. Computing the diagonal elements and inverse of a large numerator relationship matrix. Biometrics 1976, 32:949-953.
Tsuruta S., Misztal I., Lawlor T.J., Klei L. Modeling final scores in US Holsteins as a function of year of classification using random regression models. Livest. Prod. Sci. 2004, 91:199-207.
VanRaden P.M. Genomic measures of relationship and inbreeding. Interbull Bull. 2007, 37:33-36.
VanRaden P.M. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91:4414-4423.
Wolc A., Arango J., Settar P., Fulton J.E., O'Sullivan N.P., Preisinger R., Habier D., Fernando R., Garrick D.J., Dekkers J.C.M. Persistence of accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values over generations in layer chickens. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2011, 43:23.