Estimating genomic relationships of metafounders across and within breeds using maximum likelihood, pseudo-expectation-maximization maximum likelihood and increase of relationships.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The theory of "metafounders" proposes a unified framework for relationships across base populations within breeds (e.g. unknown parent groups), and base populations across breeds (crosses) together with a sensible compatibility with genomic relationships. Considering metafounders might be advantageous in pedigree best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) or single-step genomic BLUP. Existing methods to estimate relationships across metafounders Γ are not well adapted to highly unbalanced data, genotyped individuals far from base populations, or many unknown parent groups (within breed per year of birth). METHODS: We derive likelihood methods to estimate Γ . For a single metafounder, summary statistics of pedigree and genomic relationships allow deriving a cubic equation with the real root being the maximum likelihood (ML) estimate of Γ . This equation is tested with Lacaune sheep data. For several metafounders, we split the first derivative of the complete likelihood in a term related to Γ , and a second term related to Mendelian sampling variances. Approximating the first derivative by its first term results in a pseudo-EM algorithm that iteratively updates the estimate of Γ by the corresponding block of the H-matrix. The method extends to complex situations with groups defined by year of birth, modelling the increase of Γ using estimates of the rate of increase of inbreeding ( Δ F ), resulting in an expanded Γ and in a pseudo-EM+ Δ F algorithm. We compare these methods with the generalized least squares (GLS) method using simulated data complex crosses of two breeds in equal or unsymmetrical proportions; and in two breeds, with 10 groups per year of birth within breed. We simulate genotyping in all generations or in the last ones. RESULTS: For a single metafounder, the ML estimates of the Lacaune data corresponded to the maximum. For simulated data, when genotypes were spread across all generations, both GLS and pseudo-EM(+ Δ F ) methods were accurate. With genotypes only available in the most recent generations, the GLS method was biased, whereas the pseudo-EM(+ Δ F ) approach yielded more accurate and unbiased estimates. CONCLUSIONS: We derived ML, pseudo-EM and pseudo-EM+ Δ F methods to estimate Γ in many realistic settings. Estimates are accurate in real and simulated data and have a low computational cost.