Literature DB >> 23915541

Effect of predictor traits on accuracy of genomic breeding values for feed intake based on a limited cow reference population.

M Pszczola1, R F Veerkamp, Y de Haas, E Wall, T Strabel, M P L Calus.   

Abstract

The genomic breeding value accuracy of scarcely recorded traits is low because of the limited number of phenotypic observations. One solution to increase the breeding value accuracy is to use predictor traits. This study investigated the impact of recording additional phenotypic observations for predictor traits on reference and evaluated animals on the genomic breeding value accuracy for a scarcely recorded trait. The scarcely recorded trait was dry matter intake (DMI, n = 869) and the predictor traits were fat-protein-corrected milk (FPCM, n = 1520) and live weight (LW, n = 1309). All phenotyped animals were genotyped and originated from research farms in Ireland, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. Multi-trait REML was used to simultaneously estimate variance components and breeding values for DMI using available predictors. In addition, analyses using only pedigree relationships were performed. Breeding value accuracy was assessed through cross-validation (CV) and prediction error variance (PEV). CV groups (n = 7) were defined by splitting animals across genetic lines and management groups within country. With no additional traits recorded for the evaluated animals, both CV- and PEV-based accuracies for DMI were substantially higher for genomic than for pedigree analyses (CV: max. 0.26 for pedigree and 0.33 for genomic analyses; PEV: max. 0.45 and 0.52, respectively). With additional traits available, the differences between pedigree and genomic accuracies diminished. With additional recording for FPCM, pedigree accuracies increased from 0.26 to 0.47 for CV and from 0.45 to 0.48 for PEV. Genomic accuracies increased from 0.33 to 0.50 for CV and from 0.52 to 0.53 for PEV. With additional recording for LW instead of FPCM, pedigree accuracies increased to 0.54 for CV and to 0.61 for PEV. Genomic accuracies increased to 0.57 for CV and to 0.60 for PEV. With both FPCM and LW available for evaluated animals, accuracy was highest (0.62 for CV and 0.61 for PEV in pedigree, and 0.63 for CV and 0.61 for PEV in genomic analyses). Recording predictor traits for only the reference population did not increase DMI breeding value accuracy. Recording predictor traits for both reference and evaluated animals significantly increased DMI breeding value accuracy and removed the bias observed when only reference animals had records. The benefit of using genomic instead of pedigree relationships was reduced when more predictor traits were used. Using predictor traits may be an inexpensive way to significantly increase the accuracy and remove the bias of (genomic) breeding values of scarcely recorded traits such as feed intake.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23915541     DOI: 10.1017/S175173111300150X

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Animal        ISSN: 1751-7311            Impact factor:   3.240


  11 in total

1.  Bayesian Networks Illustrate Genomic and Residual Trait Connections in Maize (Zea mays L.).

Authors:  Katrin Töpner; Guilherme J M Rosa; Daniel Gianola; Chris-Carolin Schön
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 3.154

2.  Bayesian optimization of multivariate genomic prediction models based on secondary traits for improved accuracy gains and phenotyping costs.

Authors:  Kosuke Hamazaki; Hiroyoshi Iwata
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2021-10-05       Impact factor: 5.699

Review 3.  Invited review: overview of new traits and phenotyping strategies in dairy cattle with a focus on functional traits.

Authors:  C Egger-Danner; J B Cole; J E Pryce; N Gengler; B Heringstad; A Bradley; K F Stock
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2014-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Canopy Temperature and Vegetation Indices from High-Throughput Phenotyping Improve Accuracy of Pedigree and Genomic Selection for Grain Yield in Wheat.

Authors:  Jessica Rutkoski; Jesse Poland; Suchismita Mondal; Enrique Autrique; Lorena González Pérez; José Crossa; Matthew Reynolds; Ravi Singh
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 3.154

5.  An experimental validation of genomic selection in octoploid strawberry.

Authors:  Salvador A Gezan; Luis F Osorio; Sujeet Verma; Vance M Whitaker
Journal:  Hortic Res       Date:  2017-01-11       Impact factor: 6.793

6.  Pitfalls and Remedies for Cross Validation with Multi-trait Genomic Prediction Methods.

Authors:  Daniel Runcie; Hao Cheng
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 3.154

7.  Advantages and limitations of multiple-trait genomic prediction for Fusarium head blight severity in hybrid wheat (Triticum aestivum L.).

Authors:  Albert W Schulthess; Yusheng Zhao; C Friedrich H Longin; Jochen C Reif
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 5.699

8.  A Genomic Bayesian Multi-trait and Multi-environment Model.

Authors:  Osval A Montesinos-López; Abelardo Montesinos-López; José Crossa; Fernando H Toledo; Oscar Pérez-Hernández; Kent M Eskridge; Jessica Rutkoski
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 3.154

9.  Utilization of information from gene networks towards a better understanding of functional similarities between complex traits: a dairy cattle model.

Authors:  Magdalena Frąszczak; Tomasz Suchocki; Joanna Szyda
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2015-08-01       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Genetic evaluation of sheep for resistance to gastrointestinal nematodes and body size including genomic information.

Authors:  Tatiana Saraiva Torres; Luciano Silva Sena; Gleyson Vieira Dos Santos; Luiz Antonio Silva Figueiredo Filho; Bruna Lima Barbosa; Antônio de Sousa Júnior; Fábio Barros Britto; José Lindenberg Rocha Sarmento
Journal:  Anim Biosci       Date:  2020-04-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.