Literature DB >> 18076471

Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters.

W M Muir1.   

Abstract

Accuracy of prediction of estimated breeding values based on genome-wide markers (GEBV) and selection based on GEBV as compared with traditional Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) was examined for a number of alternatives, including low heritability, number of generations of training, marker density, initial distributions, and effective population size (Ne). Results show that the more the generations of data in which both genotypes and phenotypes were collected, termed training generations (TG), the better the accuracy and persistency of accuracy based on GEBV. GEBV excelled for traits of low heritability regardless of initial equilibrium conditions, as opposed to traditional marker-assisted selection, which is not useful for traits of low heritability. Effective population size is critical for populations starting in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium but not for populations started from mutation-drift equilibrium. In comparison with traditional BLUP, GEBV can exceed the accuracy of BLUP provided enough TG are included. Unfortunately selection rapidly reduces the accuracy of GEBV. In all cases examined, classic BLUP selection exceeds what was possible for GEBV selection. Even still, GEBV could have an advantage over traditional BLUP in cases such as sex-limited traits, traits that are expensive to measure, or can only be measured on relatives. A combined approach, utilizing a mixed model with a second random effect to account for quantitative trait loci in linkage equilibrium (the polygenic effect) was suggested as a way to capitalize on both methodologies.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18076471     DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00700.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet        ISSN: 0931-2668            Impact factor:   2.380


  84 in total

1.  Forecasting the accuracy of genomic prediction with different selection targets in the training and prediction set as well as truncation selection.

Authors:  Pascal Schopp; Christian Riedelsheimer; H Friedrich Utz; Chris-Carolin Schön; Albrecht E Melchinger
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2015-08-01       Impact factor: 5.699

2.  Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response.

Authors:  Mike Goddard
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2008-08-14       Impact factor: 1.082

3.  Reliability of genomic predictions across multiple populations.

Authors:  A P W de Roos; B J Hayes; M E Goddard
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-10-12       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Marker-assisted prediction of non-additive genetic values.

Authors:  Nanye Long; Daniel Gianola; Guilherme J M Rosa; Kent A Weigel
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2011-06-15       Impact factor: 1.082

5.  Long-term impacts of genome-enabled selection.

Authors:  Nanye Long; Daniel Gianola; Guilherme J M Rosa; Kent A Weigel
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Genome-wide assessment of worldwide chicken SNP genetic diversity indicates significant absence of rare alleles in commercial breeds.

Authors:  William M Muir; Gane Ka-Shu Wong; Yong Zhang; Jun Wang; Martien A M Groenen; Richard P M A Crooijmans; Hendrik-Jan Megens; Huanmin Zhang; Ron Okimoto; Addie Vereijken; Annemieke Jungerius; Gerard A A Albers; Cindy Taylor Lawley; Mary E Delany; Sean MacEachern; Hans H Cheng
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-11-03       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle.

Authors:  David Habier; Jens Tetens; Franz-Reinhold Seefried; Peter Lichtner; Georg Thaller
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  Testing strategies for genomic selection in aquaculture breeding programs.

Authors:  Anna K Sonesson; Theo H E Meuwissen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Haplotype inference in crossbred populations without pedigree information.

Authors:  Albart Coster; Henri C M Heuven; Rohan L Fernando; Jack C M Dekkers
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2009-08-11       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Persistence of accuracy of genome-wide breeding values over generations when including a polygenic effect.

Authors:  Trygve R Solberg; Anna K Sonesson; John A Woolliams; Jørgen Odegard; Theo H E Meuwissen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 4.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.