Literature DB >> 24679931

Are evaluations on young genotyped animals benefiting from the past generations?

D A L Lourenco1, I Misztal2, S Tsuruta2, I Aguilar3, T J Lawlor4, S Forni5, J I Weller6.   

Abstract

Data sets of US Holsteins, Israeli Holsteins, and pigs from PIC (a Genus company, Hendersonville, TN) were used to evaluate the effect of different numbers of generations on ability to predict genomic breeding values of young genotyped animals. The influence of including only 2 generations of ancestors (A2) or all ancestors (Af) was also investigated. A total of 34,506 US Holsteins, 1,305 Israeli Holsteins, and 5,236 pigs were genotyped. The evaluations were computed by traditional BLUP and single-step genomic BLUP, and computing performance was assessed for the latter method. For the 2 Holstein data sets, coefficients of determination (R(2)) and regression (δ) of deregressed evaluations from a full data set with records up to 2011 on estimated breeding values and genomic estimated breeding values from the truncated data sets were computed. The thresholds for data deletion were set by intervals of 5 yr, based on the average generation interval in dairy cattle. For the PIC data set, correlations between corrected phenotypes and estimated or genomic estimated breeding values were used to evaluate predictive ability on young animals born in 2010 and 2011. The reduced data set contained data up to 2009, and the thresholds were set based on an average generation interval of 3 yr. The number of generations that could be deleted without a reduction in accuracy depended on data structure and trait. For US Holsteins, removing 3 and 4 generations of data did not reduce accuracy of evaluations for final score in Af and A2 scenarios, respectively. For Israeli Holsteins, the accuracies for milk, fat, and protein yields were the highest when only phenotypes recorded in 2000 and later were included and full pedigrees were applied. Of the 135 Israeli bulls with genotypes (validation set) and daughter records only in the complete data set, 38 and 97 were sons of Israeli and foreign bulls, respectively. Although more phenotypic data increased the prediction accuracy for sons of Israeli bulls, the reverse was true for sons of foreign bulls. Also, more phenotypic data caused large inflation of genomic estimated breeding values for sons of foreign bulls, whereas the opposite was true with the deletion of all but the most recent phenotypic data. Results for protein and fat percentage were different from those for milk, fat, and protein yields; however, relatively, the changes in coefficients of determination and regression were smaller for percentage traits. For PIC data set, removing data from up to 5 generations did not erode predictive ability for genotyped animals for the 2 reproductive traits used in validation. Given the data used in this study, truncating old data reduces computation requirements but does not decrease the accuracy. For small populations that include local and imported animals, truncation may be beneficial for one group of animals and detrimental to another group.
Copyright © 2014 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dairy cattle; genomic selection; pedigree depth; single-step genomic BLUP

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24679931     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2013-7769

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


  11 in total

1.  Ancestral Relationships Using Metafounders: Finite Ancestral Populations and Across Population Relationships.

Authors:  Andres Legarra; Ole F Christensen; Zulma G Vitezica; Ignacio Aguilar; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Impact and utility of shallow pedigree using single-step genomic BLUP for prediction of unbiased genomic breeding values.

Authors:  G R Gowane; Rani Alex; Anupama Mukherjee; Vikas Vohra
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2022-10-10       Impact factor: 1.893

3.  Response and inbreeding from a genomic selection experiment in layer chickens.

Authors:  Anna Wolc; Honghua H Zhao; Jesus Arango; Petek Settar; Janet E Fulton; Neil P O'Sullivan; Rudolf Preisinger; Chris Stricker; David Habier; Rohan L Fernando; Dorian J Garrick; Susan J Lamont; Jack C M Dekkers
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-07-07       Impact factor: 4.297

4.  Application of single step genomic BLUP under different uncertain paternity scenarios using simulated data.

Authors:  Rafael Lara Tonussi; Rafael Medeiros de Oliveira Silva; Ana Fabrícia Braga Magalhães; Rafael Espigolan; Elisa Peripolli; Bianca Ferreira Olivieri; Fabieli Loise Braga Feitosa; Marcos Vinicíus Antunes Lemos; Mariana Piatto Berton; Hermenegildo Lucas Justino Chiaia; Angelica Simone Cravo Pereira; Raysildo Barbosa Lôbo; Luiz Antônio Framartino Bezerra; Cláudio de Ulhoa Magnabosco; Daniela Andressa Lino Lourenço; Ignácio Aguilar; Fernando Baldi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Comparison of economic returns among genetic evaluation strategies in a 2-tiered Charolais-sired beef cattle production system.

Authors:  Justin W Buchanan; Michael D MacNeil; Randall C Raymond; Ashley R Nilles; Alison Louise Van Eenennaam
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Validation of single-step genomic predictions using the linear regression method for milk yield and heat tolerance in a Thai-Holstein population.

Authors:  Piriyaporn Sungkhapreecha; Ignacy Misztal; Jorge Hidalgo; Daniela Lourenco; Sayan Buaban; Vibuntita Chankitisakul; Wuttigrai Boonkum
Journal:  Vet World       Date:  2021-12-15

7.  Automatic Fruit Morphology Phenome and Genetic Analysis: An Application in the Octoploid Strawberry.

Authors:  Laura M Zingaretti; Amparo Monfort; Miguel Pérez-Enciso
Journal:  Plant Phenomics       Date:  2021-05-12

8.  Effects of number of training generations on genomic prediction for various traits in a layer chicken population.

Authors:  Ziqing Weng; Anna Wolc; Xia Shen; Rohan L Fernando; Jack C M Dekkers; Jesus Arango; Petek Settar; Janet E Fulton; Neil P O'Sullivan; Dorian J Garrick
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2016-03-19       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Reliability of genomic evaluation for egg quality traits in layers.

Authors:  David Picard Druet; Amandine Varenne; Florian Herry; Frédéric Hérault; Sophie Allais; Thierry Burlot; Pascale Le Roy
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2020-02-11       Impact factor: 2.797

10.  The impact of training on data from genetically-related lines on the accuracy of genomic predictions for feed efficiency traits in pigs.

Authors:  Amir Aliakbari; Emilie Delpuech; Yann Labrune; Juliette Riquet; Hélène Gilbert
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 4.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.