Literature DB >> 22818480

Comparison of genomic predictions using medium-density (∼54,000) and high-density (∼777,000) single nucleotide polymorphism marker panels in Nordic Holstein and Red Dairy Cattle populations.

G Su1, R F Brøndum, P Ma, B Guldbrandtsen, G P Aamand, M S Lund.   

Abstract

This study investigated genomic prediction using medium-density (∼54,000; 54K) and high-density marker panels (∼777,000; 777K), based on data from Nordic Holstein and Red Dairy Cattle (RDC). The Holstein data comprised 4,539 progeny-tested bulls, and the RDC data 4,403 progeny-tested bulls. The data were divided into reference data and test data using October 1, 2001, as a cut-off date (birth date of the bulls). This resulted in about 25% genotyped bulls in the Holstein test data and 20% in the RDC test data. For each breed, 3 data sets of markers were used to predict breeding values: (1) 54K data set with missing genotypes, (2) 54K data set where missing genotypes were imputed, and (3) imputed high-density (HD) marker data set created by imputing the 54K data to the HD data based on 557 bulls genotyped using a 777K single nucleotide polymorphism chip in Holstein, and 706 bulls in RDC. Based on the 3 marker data sets, direct genomic breeding values (DGV) for protein, fertility, and udder health were predicted using a genomic BLUP model (GBLUP) and a Bayesian mixture model with 2 normal distributions. Reliability of DGV was measured as squared correlations between deregressed proofs (DRP) and DGV corrected for reliability of DRP. Unbiasedness was assessed by regression of DRP on DGV, based on the bulls in the test data sets. Averaged over the 3 traits, reliability of DGV based on the HD markers was 0.5% higher than that based on the 54K data in Holstein, and 1.0% higher than that in RDC. In addition, the HD markers led to an improvement of unbiasedness of DGV. The Bayesian mixture model led to 0.5% higher reliability than the GBLUP model in Holstein, but not in RDC. Imputing missing genotypes in the 54K marker data did not improve genomic predictions for most of the traits.
Copyright © 2012 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22818480     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2012-5379

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dairy Sci        ISSN: 0022-0302            Impact factor:   4.034


  39 in total

1.  The effects of demography and long-term selection on the accuracy of genomic prediction with sequence data.

Authors:  Iona M MacLeod; Ben J Hayes; Michael E Goddard
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-09-18       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Genomic predictions in purebreds with a multibreed genomic relationship matrix1.

Authors:  Yvette Steyn; Daniela A L Lourenco; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Tomato genomic prediction for good performance under high-temperature and identification of loci involved in thermotolerance response.

Authors:  Elisa Cappetta; Giuseppe Andolfo; Anna Guadagno; Antonio Di Matteo; Amalia Barone; Luigi Frusciante; Maria Raffaella Ercolano
Journal:  Hortic Res       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 6.793

4.  Genomic prediction of genetic merit using LD-based haplotypes in the Nordic Holstein population.

Authors:  Beatriz C D Cuyabano; Guosheng Su; Mogens S Lund
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 3.969

5.  Genome-wide estimates of coancestry, inbreeding and effective population size in the Spanish Holstein population.

Authors:  Silvia Teresa Rodríguez-Ramilo; Jesús Fernández; Miguel Angel Toro; Delfino Hernández; Beatriz Villanueva
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Partitioning of genomic variance reveals biological pathways associated with udder health and milk production traits in dairy cattle.

Authors:  Stefan M Edwards; Bo Thomsen; Per Madsen; Peter Sørensen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-07-14       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  A computationally efficient algorithm for genomic prediction using a Bayesian model.

Authors:  Tingting Wang; Yi-Ping Phoebe Chen; Michael E Goddard; Theo H E Meuwissen; Kathryn E Kemper; Ben J Hayes
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  Imputation of high-density genotypes in the Fleckvieh cattle population.

Authors:  Hubert Pausch; Bernhard Aigner; Reiner Emmerling; Christian Edel; Kay-Uwe Götz; Ruedi Fries
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2013-02-13       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Genomic prediction using imputed whole-genome sequence data in Holstein Friesian cattle.

Authors:  Rianne van Binsbergen; Mario P L Calus; Marco C A M Bink; Fred A van Eeuwijk; Chris Schrooten; Roel F Veerkamp
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Selection of haplotype variables from a high-density marker map for genomic prediction.

Authors:  Beatriz Cd Cuyabano; Guosheng Su; Mogens S Lund
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-08-01       Impact factor: 4.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.