On Hadamard and Kronecker products in covariance structures for genotype × environment interaction

Abstract When including genotype × environment interactions (G × E) in genomic prediction models, Hadamard or Kronecker products have been used to model the covariance structure of interactions. The relation between these two types of modeling has not been made clear in genomic prediction literature...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Johannes W. R. Martini, Jose Crossa, Fernando H. Toledo, Jaime Cuevas
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-11-01
Series:The Plant Genome
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1002/tpg2.20033
id doaj-1b65c2141fa24216b12379f63110876b
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1b65c2141fa24216b12379f63110876b2020-11-25T04:11:25ZengWileyThe Plant Genome1940-33722020-11-01133n/an/a10.1002/tpg2.20033On Hadamard and Kronecker products in covariance structures for genotype × environment interactionJohannes W. R. Martini0Jose Crossa1Fernando H. Toledo2Jaime Cuevas3International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Km. 45, El Batán 56237 Texcoco MexicoInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Km. 45, El Batán 56237 Texcoco MexicoInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Km. 45, El Batán 56237 Texcoco MexicoUniversidad de Quintana Roo Del Bosque, 77019 Chetumal, Q.R. MexicoAbstract When including genotype × environment interactions (G × E) in genomic prediction models, Hadamard or Kronecker products have been used to model the covariance structure of interactions. The relation between these two types of modeling has not been made clear in genomic prediction literature. Here, we demonstrate that a certain model based on a Hadamard formulation and another using the Kronecker product lead to exactly the same statistical model. Moreover, we illustrate how a multiplication of entries of covariance matrices is related to modeling locus × environmental‐variable interactions explicitly. Finally, we use a wheat and a maize data set to illustrate that the environmental covariance E can be specified easily, also if no information on environmental variables – such as temperature or precipitation – is available. Given that lines have been tested in different environments, the corresponding environmental covariance can simply be estimated from the training set as phenotypic covariance between environments. To achieve a high level of increase in predictive ability, the environmental covariance has to be defined appropriately and records on the performance of the lines of the test set under different environmental conditions have to be included in the training set.https://doi.org/10.1002/tpg2.20033
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Johannes W. R. Martini
Jose Crossa
Fernando H. Toledo
Jaime Cuevas
spellingShingle Johannes W. R. Martini
Jose Crossa
Fernando H. Toledo
Jaime Cuevas
On Hadamard and Kronecker products in covariance structures for genotype × environment interaction
The Plant Genome
author_facet Johannes W. R. Martini
Jose Crossa
Fernando H. Toledo
Jaime Cuevas
author_sort Johannes W. R. Martini
title On Hadamard and Kronecker products in covariance structures for genotype × environment interaction
title_short On Hadamard and Kronecker products in covariance structures for genotype × environment interaction
title_full On Hadamard and Kronecker products in covariance structures for genotype × environment interaction
title_fullStr On Hadamard and Kronecker products in covariance structures for genotype × environment interaction
title_full_unstemmed On Hadamard and Kronecker products in covariance structures for genotype × environment interaction
title_sort on hadamard and kronecker products in covariance structures for genotype × environment interaction
publisher Wiley
series The Plant Genome
issn 1940-3372
publishDate 2020-11-01
description Abstract When including genotype × environment interactions (G × E) in genomic prediction models, Hadamard or Kronecker products have been used to model the covariance structure of interactions. The relation between these two types of modeling has not been made clear in genomic prediction literature. Here, we demonstrate that a certain model based on a Hadamard formulation and another using the Kronecker product lead to exactly the same statistical model. Moreover, we illustrate how a multiplication of entries of covariance matrices is related to modeling locus × environmental‐variable interactions explicitly. Finally, we use a wheat and a maize data set to illustrate that the environmental covariance E can be specified easily, also if no information on environmental variables – such as temperature or precipitation – is available. Given that lines have been tested in different environments, the corresponding environmental covariance can simply be estimated from the training set as phenotypic covariance between environments. To achieve a high level of increase in predictive ability, the environmental covariance has to be defined appropriately and records on the performance of the lines of the test set under different environmental conditions have to be included in the training set.
url https://doi.org/10.1002/tpg2.20033
work_keys_str_mv AT johanneswrmartini onhadamardandkroneckerproductsincovariancestructuresforgenotypeenvironmentinteraction
AT josecrossa onhadamardandkroneckerproductsincovariancestructuresforgenotypeenvironmentinteraction
AT fernandohtoledo onhadamardandkroneckerproductsincovariancestructuresforgenotypeenvironmentinteraction
AT jaimecuevas onhadamardandkroneckerproductsincovariancestructuresforgenotypeenvironmentinteraction
_version_ 1724417789775577088