Literature DB >> 23658330

Accuracy of prediction of genomic breeding values for residual feed intake and carcass and meat quality traits in Bos taurus, Bos indicus, and composite beef cattle.

S Bolormaa1, J E Pryce, K Kemper, K Savin, B J Hayes, W Barendse, Y Zhang, C M Reich, B A Mason, R J Bunch, B E Harrison, A Reverter, R M Herd, B Tier, H-U Graser, M E Goddard.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of genomic predictions for 19 traits including feed efficiency, growth, and carcass and meat quality traits in beef cattle. The 10,181 cattle in our study had real or imputed genotypes for 729,068 SNP although not all cattle were measured for all traits. Animals included Bos taurus, Brahman, composite, and crossbred animals. Genomic EBV (GEBV) were calculated using 2 methods of genomic prediction [BayesR and genomic BLUP (GBLUP)] either using a common training dataset for all breeds or using a training dataset comprising only animals of the same breed. Accuracies of GEBV were assessed using 5-fold cross-validation. The accuracy of genomic prediction varied by trait and by method. Traits with a large number of recorded and genotyped animals and with high heritability gave the greatest accuracy of GEBV. Using GBLUP, the average accuracy was 0.27 across traits and breeds, but the accuracies between breeds and between traits varied widely. When the training population was restricted to animals from the same breed as the validation population, GBLUP accuracies declined by an average of 0.04. The greatest decline in accuracy was found for the 4 composite breeds. The BayesR accuracies were greater by an average of 0.03 than GBLUP accuracies, particularly for traits with known genes of moderate to large effect mutations segregating. The accuracies of 0.43 to 0.48 for IGF-I traits were among the greatest in the study. Although accuracies are low compared with those observed in dairy cattle, genomic selection would still be beneficial for traits that are hard to improve by conventional selection, such as tenderness and residual feed intake. BayesR identified many of the same quantitative trait loci as a genomewide association study but appeared to map them more precisely. All traits appear to be highly polygenic with thousands of SNP independently associated with each trait.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23658330     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2012-5827

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


  63 in total

1.  Explicit Modeling of Ancestry Improves Polygenic Risk Scores and BLUP Prediction.

Authors:  Chia-Yen Chen; Jiali Han; David J Hunter; Peter Kraft; Alkes L Price
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 2.135

Review 2.  Genetics of complex traits: prediction of phenotype, identification of causal polymorphisms and genetic architecture.

Authors:  M E Goddard; K E Kemper; I M MacLeod; A J Chamberlain; B J Hayes
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 5.349

3.  Gene expression analysis of blood, liver, and muscle in cattle divergently selected for high and low residual feed intake.

Authors:  M Khansefid; C A Millen; Y Chen; J E Pryce; A J Chamberlain; C J Vander Jagt; C Gondro; M E Goddard
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Genome-wide association study for stayability measures in Nellore-Angus crossbred cows.

Authors:  Bailey N Engle; Andy D Herring; Jason E Sawyer; David G Riley; James O Sanders; Clare A Gill
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-04-14       Impact factor: 3.159

7.  Weak genotype x environment interaction suggests that measuring scrotal circumference at 12 and 18 mo of age is helpful to select precocious Brahman cattle.

Authors:  Bárbara M Nascimento; Roberto Carvalheiro; Rodrigo de A Teixeira; Laila T Dias; Marina R S Fortes
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2022-09-01       Impact factor: 3.338

8.  Eating Time as a Genetic Indicator of Methane Emissions and Feed Efficiency in Australian Maternal Composite Sheep.

Authors:  Boris J Sepulveda; Stephanie K Muir; Sunduimijid Bolormaa; Matthew I Knight; Ralph Behrendt; Iona M MacLeod; Jennie E Pryce; Hans D Daetwyler
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 4.772

9.  Non-additive genetic variation in growth, carcass and fertility traits of beef cattle.

Authors:  Sunduimijid Bolormaa; Jennie E Pryce; Yuandan Zhang; Antonio Reverter; William Barendse; Ben J Hayes; Michael E Goddard
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-04-02       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Genomic analysis for managing small and endangered populations: a case study in Tyrol Grey cattle.

Authors:  Gábor Mészáros; Solomon A Boison; Ana M Pérez O'Brien; Maja Ferenčaković; Ino Curik; Marcos V Barbosa Da Silva; Yuri T Utsunomiya; Jose F Garcia; Johann Sölkner
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2015-05-13       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.