Literature DB >> 20889689

Genome-wide marker-assisted selection combining all pedigree phenotypic information with genotypic data in one step: An example using broiler chickens.

C Y Chen1, I Misztal, I Aguilar, S Tsuruta, T H E Meuwissen, S E Aggrey, T Wing, W M Muir.   

Abstract

Data of broiler chickens for 2 pure lines across 3 generations were used for genomic evaluation. A complete population (full data set; FDS) consisted of 183,784 and 164,246 broilers for the 2 lines. The genotyped subsets (SUB) consisted of 3,284 and 3,098 broilers with 57,636 SNP. Genotyped animals were preselected based on more than 20 traits with different index applied to each line. Three traits were analyzed: BW at 6 wk (BW6), ultrasound measurement of breast meat (BM), and leg score (LS) coded 1 = no and 2 = yes for leg defect. Some phenotypes were missing for BM. The training population consisted of the first 2 generations including all animals in FDS or only genotyped animals in SUB. The validation data set contained only genotyped animals in the third generation. Genetic evaluations were performed using 3 approaches: 1) phenotypic BLUP, 2) extending BLUP methodologies to utilize pedigree and genomic information in a single step (ssGBLUP), and 3) Bayes A. Whereas BLUP and ssGBLUP utilized all phenotypic data, Bayes A could use only those of the genotyped subset. Heritabilities were 0.17 to 0.20 for BW6, 0.30 to 0.35 for BM, and 0.09 to 0.11 for LS. The average accuracies of the validation population with BLUP for BW6, BM, and LS were 0.46, 0.30, and <0 with SUB and 0.51, 0.34, and 0.28 with FDS. With ssGBLUP, those accuracies were 0.60, 0.34, and 0.06 with SUB and 0.61, 0.40, and 0.37 with FDS, respectively. With Bayes A, the accuracies were 0.60, 0.36, and 0.09 with SUB. With SUB, Bayes A and ssGBLUP had similar accuracies. For traits of high heritability, the accuracy of Bayes A/SUB and ssGBLUP/FDS were similar, and up to 50% better than BLUP/FDS. However, with low heritability, ssGBLUP/FDS was 4 to 6 times more accurate than Bayes A/SUB and 50% better than BLUP/FDS. An optimal genomic evaluation would be multi-trait and involve all traits and records on which selection is based.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20889689     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2010-3071

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


  25 in total

1.  A novel genomic selection method combining GBLUP and LASSO.

Authors:  Hengde Li; Jingwei Wang; Zhenmin Bao
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2015-02-06       Impact factor: 1.082

2.  Factors affecting GEBV accuracy with single-step Bayesian models.

Authors:  Lei Zhou; Raphael Mrode; Shengli Zhang; Qin Zhang; Bugao Li; Jian-Feng Liu
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2017-11-23       Impact factor: 3.821

3.  Genetic basis of leg health and its relationship with body weight in purebred turkey lines.

Authors:  D N R G Kapell; P M Hocking; P K Glover; V D Kremer; S Avendaño
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 3.352

4.  Relationships among mortality, performance, and disorder traits in broiler chickens: a genetic and genomic approach.

Authors:  X Zhang; S Tsuruta; S Andonov; D A L Lourenco; R L Sapp; C Wang; I Misztal
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 3.352

5.  Interpretation of Manhattan Plots and Other Outputs of Genome-Wide Association Studies.

Authors:  Jiabo Wang; Jianming Yu; Alexander E Lipka; Zhiwu Zhang
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

6.  Genetic parameters and purebred-crossbred genetic correlations for growth, meat quality, and carcass traits in pigs.

Authors:  Hadi Esfandyari; Dinesh Thekkoot; Robert Kemp; Graham Plastow; Jack Dekkers
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 3.159

7.  Genome-Wide Association Analysis and Genomic Prediction for Adult-Plant Resistance to Septoria Tritici Blotch and Powdery Mildew in Winter Wheat.

Authors:  Admas Alemu; Gintaras Brazauskas; David S Gaikpa; Tina Henriksson; Bulat Islamov; Lise Nistrup Jørgensen; Mati Koppel; Reine Koppel; Žilvinas Liatukas; Jan T Svensson; Aakash Chawade
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 4.599

8.  Changes in variance explained by top SNP windows over generations for three traits in broiler chicken.

Authors:  Breno de Oliveira Fragomeni; Ignacy Misztal; Daniela Lino Lourenco; Ignacio Aguilar; Ronald Okimoto; William M Muir
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2014-10-01       Impact factor: 4.599

Review 9.  Methods to address poultry robustness and welfare issues through breeding and associated ethical considerations.

Authors:  William M Muir; Heng-Wei Cheng; Candace Croney
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 4.599

10.  Genomic evaluation of both purebred and crossbred performances.

Authors:  Ole F Christensen; Per Madsen; Bjarne Nielsen; Guosheng Su
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 4.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.