Literature DB >> 19749023

Genomic selection in admixed and crossbred populations.

A Toosi1, R L Fernando, J C M Dekkers.   

Abstract

In livestock, genomic selection (GS) has primarily been investigated by simulation of purebred populations. Traits of interest are, however, often measured in crossbred or mixed populations with uncertain breed composition. If such data are used as the training data for GS without accounting for breed composition, estimates of marker effects may be biased due to population stratification and admixture. To investigate this, a genome of 100 cM was simulated with varying marker densities (5 to 40 segregating markers per cM). After 1,000 generations of random mating in a population of effective size 500, 4 lines with effective size 100 were isolated and mated for another 50 generations to create 4 pure breeds. These breeds were used to generate combined, F(1), F(2), 3- and 4-way crosses, and admixed training data sets of 1,000 individuals with phenotypes for an additive trait controlled by 100 segregating QTL and heritability of 0.30. The validation data set was a sample of 1,000 genotyped individuals from one pure breed. Method Bayes-B was used to simultaneously estimate the effects of all markers for breeding value estimation. With 5 (40) markers per cM, the correlation of true with estimated breeding value of selection candidates (accuracy) was greatest, 0.79 (0.85), when data from the same pure breed were used for training. When the training data set consisted of crossbreds, the accuracy ranged from 0.66 (0.79) to 0.74 (0.83) for the 2 marker densities, respectively. The admixed training data set resulted in nearly the same accuracies as when training was in the breed to which selection candidates belonged. However, accuracy was greatly reduced when genes from the target pure breed were not included in the admixed or crossbred population. This implies that, with high-density markers, admixed and crossbred populations can be used to develop GS prediction equations for all pure breeds that contributed to the population, without a substantial loss of accuracy compared with training on purebred data, even if breed origin has not been explicitly taken into account. In addition, using GS based on high-density marker data, purebreds can be accurately selected for crossbred performance without the need for pedigree or breed information. Results also showed that haplotype segments with strong linkage disequilibrium are shorter in crossbred and admixed populations than in purebreds, providing opportunities for QTL fine mapping.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19749023     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-1975

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  57 in total

1.  Prediction of genetic values of quantitative traits with epistatic effects in plant breeding populations.

Authors:  D Wang; I Salah El-Basyoni; P Stephen Baenziger; J Crossa; K M Eskridge; I Dweikat
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2012-08-15       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  Fine mapping by composite genome-wide association analysis.

Authors:  Joaquim Casellas; Jhon Jacobo Cañas-Álvarez; Marta Fina; Jesús Piedrafita; Alessio Cecchinato
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2017-06-06       Impact factor: 1.588

Review 3.  Genomic prediction in animals and plants: simulation of data, validation, reporting, and benchmarking.

Authors:  Hans D Daetwyler; Mario P L Calus; Ricardo Pong-Wong; Gustavo de Los Campos; John M Hickey
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 4.  The nature, scope and impact of genomic prediction in beef cattle in the United States.

Authors:  Dorian J Garrick
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2011-05-15       Impact factor: 4.297

5.  Including crossbred pigs in the genomic relationship matrix through utilization of both linkage disequilibrium and linkage analysis.

Authors:  M W Iversen; Ø Nordbø; E Gjerlaug-Enger; E Grindflek; M S Lopes; T H E Meuwissen
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Comparison of parametric, semiparametric and nonparametric methods in genomic evaluation.

Authors:  Hamid Sahebalam; Mohsen Gholizadeh; Hasan Hafezian; Ayoub Farhadi
Journal:  J Genet       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.166

7.  Comparing genomic prediction accuracy from purebred, crossbred and combined purebred and crossbred reference populations in sheep.

Authors:  Nasir Moghaddar; Andrew A Swan; Julius H J van der Werf
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  Accuracies of genomically estimated breeding values from pure-breed and across-breed predictions in Australian beef cattle.

Authors:  Vinzent Boerner; David J Johnston; Bruce Tier
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-10-24       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Genomic prediction based on data from three layer lines: a comparison between linear methods.

Authors:  Mario Pl Calus; Heyun Huang; Addie Vereijken; Jeroen Visscher; Jan Ten Napel; Jack J Windig
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Accounting for Group-Specific Allele Effects and Admixture in Genomic Predictions: Theory and Experimental Evaluation in Maize.

Authors:  Simon Rio; Laurence Moreau; Alain Charcosset; Tristan Mary-Huard
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2020-07-17       Impact factor: 4.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.