Literature DB >> 24472123

Methods for genomic evaluation of a relatively small genotyped dairy population and effect of genotyped cow information in multiparity analyses.

D A L Lourenco1, I Misztal2, S Tsuruta2, I Aguilar3, E Ezra4, M Ron5, A Shirak5, J I Weller5.   

Abstract

Methods for genomic prediction were evaluated for an Israeli Holstein dairy population of 713,686 cows and 1,305 progeny-tested bulls with genotypes. Inclusion of genotypes of 343 elite cows in an evaluation method that considers pedigree, phenotypes, and genotypes simultaneously was also evaluated. Two data sets were available: a complete data set with production records from 1985 through 2011, and a reduced data set with records after 2006 deleted. For each production trait, a multitrait animal model was used to compute traditional genetic evaluations for parities 1 through 3 as separate traits. Evaluations were calculated for the reduced and complete data sets. The evaluations from the reduced data set were used to calculate parent average for validation bulls, which was the benchmark for comparing gain in predictive ability from genomics. Genomic predictions for bulls in 2006 were calculated using a Bayesian regression method (BayesC), genomic BLUP (GBLUP), single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP), and weighted ssGBLUP (WssGBLUP). Predictions using BayesC and GBLUP were calculated either with or without an index that included parent average. Genomic predictions that included elite cow genotypes were calculated using ssGBLUP and WssGBLUP. Predictive ability was assessed by coefficients of determination (R(2)) and regressions of predictions of 135 validation bulls with no daughters in 2006 on deregressed evaluations of those bulls in 2011. A reduction in R(2) and regression coefficients was observed from parities 1 through 3. Fat and protein yields had the lowest R(2) for all the methods. On average, R(2) was lowest for parent averages, followed by GBLUP, BayesC, ssGBLUP, and WssGBLUP. For some traits, R(2) for direct genomic values from BayesC and GBLUP were lower than those for parent averages. Genomic estimated breeding values using ssGBLUP were the least biased, and this method appears to be a suitable tool for genomic evaluation of a small genotyped population, as it automatically accounts for parental index, allows for inclusion of female genomic information without preadjustments in evaluations, and uses the same model as in traditional evaluations. Weighted ssGBLUP has the potential for higher evaluation accuracy.
Copyright © 2014 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  few genotyped animals; genomic selection; multitrait model; single-step method

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24472123     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2013-6916

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


  16 in total

1.  Incorporating the single-step strategy into a random regression model to enhance genomic prediction of longitudinal traits.

Authors:  H Kang; L Zhou; R Mrode; Q Zhang; J-F Liu
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  Prediction ability for growth and maternal traits using SNP arrays based on different marker densities in Nellore cattle using the ssGBLUP.

Authors:  Juan Diego Rodriguez Neira; Elisa Peripolli; Maria Paula Marinho de Negreiros; Rafael Espigolan; Rodrigo López-Correa; Ignacio Aguilar; Raysildo B Lobo; Fernando Baldi
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Comparison of alternative approaches to single-trait genomic prediction using genotyped and non-genotyped Hanwoo beef cattle.

Authors:  Joonho Lee; Hao Cheng; Dorian Garrick; Bruce Golden; Jack Dekkers; Kyungdo Park; Deukhwan Lee; Rohan Fernando
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2017-01-04       Impact factor: 4.297

4.  Genomic Prediction Accuracy for Resistance Against Piscirickettsia salmonis in Farmed Rainbow Trout.

Authors:  Grazyella M Yoshida; Rama Bangera; Roberto Carvalheiro; Katharina Correa; René Figueroa; Jean P Lhorente; José M Yáñez
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2018-02-02       Impact factor: 3.154

5.  Using Different Single-Step Strategies to Improve the Efficiency of Genomic Prediction on Body Measurement Traits in Pig.

Authors:  Hailiang Song; Jinxin Zhang; Qin Zhang; Xiangdong Ding
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2019-01-14       Impact factor: 4.599

6.  Opportunities for genomic selection in American mink: A simulation study.

Authors:  Karim Karimi; Mehdi Sargolzaei; Graham Stuart Plastow; Zhiquan Wang; Younes Miar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-14       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Genome-Wide Association Study and Cost-Efficient Genomic Predictions for Growth and Fillet Yield in Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus).

Authors:  Grazyella M Yoshida; Jean P Lhorente; Katharina Correa; Jose Soto; Diego Salas; José M Yáñez
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 3.154

8.  Using imputation-based whole-genome sequencing data to improve the accuracy of genomic prediction for combined populations in pigs.

Authors:  Hailiang Song; Shaopan Ye; Yifan Jiang; Zhe Zhang; Qin Zhang; Xiangdong Ding
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Genomic Prediction of Average Daily Gain, Back-Fat Thickness, and Loin Muscle Depth Using Different Genomic Tools in Canadian Swine Populations.

Authors:  Siavash Salek Ardestani; Mohsen Jafarikia; Mehdi Sargolzaei; Brian Sullivan; Younes Miar
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 4.599

Review 10.  Single-Step Genomic Evaluations from Theory to Practice: Using SNP Chips and Sequence Data in BLUPF90.

Authors:  Daniela Lourenco; Andres Legarra; Shogo Tsuruta; Yutaka Masuda; Ignacio Aguilar; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 4.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.