Literature DB >> 25039816

Differences between genomic-based and pedigree-based relationships in a chicken population, as a function of quality control and pedigree links among individuals.

H Wang1, I Misztal, A Legarra.   

Abstract

This work studied differences between expected (calculated from pedigree) and realized (genomic, from markers) relationships in a real population, the influence of quality control on these differences, and their fit to current theory. Data included 4940 pure line chickens across five generations genotyped for 57,636 SNP. Pedigrees (5762 animals) were available for the five generations, pedigree starting on the first one. Three levels of quality control were used. With no quality control, mean difference between realized and expected relationships for different type of relationships was ≤ 0.04 with standard deviation ≤ 0.10. With strong quality control (call rate ≥ 0.9, parent-progeny conflicts, minor allele frequency and use of only autosomal chromosomes), these numbers reduced to ≤ 0.02 and ≤ 0.04, respectively. While the maximum difference was 1.02 with the complete data, it was only 0.18 with the latest three generations of genotypes (but including all pedigrees). Variation of expected minus realized relationships agreed with theoretical developments and suggests an effective number of loci of 70 for this population. When the pedigree is complete and as deep as the genotypes, the standard deviation of difference between the expected and realized relationships is around 0.04, all categories confounded. Standard deviation of differences larger than 0.10 suggests bad quality control, mistakes in pedigree recording or genotype labelling, or insufficient depth of pedigree.
© 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chicken; comparison; genomic relationship matrix; numerator relationship matrix; standard deviation

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25039816     DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12109

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet        ISSN: 0931-2668            Impact factor:   2.380


  7 in total

1.  Modeling additive and non-additive effects in a hybrid population using genome-wide genotyping: prediction accuracy implications.

Authors:  J-M Bouvet; G Makouanzi; D Cros; Ph Vigneron
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  Quality control of genotypes using heritability estimates of gene content at the marker.

Authors:  Natalia S Forneris; Andres Legarra; Zulma G Vitezica; Shogo Tsuruta; Ignacio Aguilar; Ignacy Misztal; Rodolfo J C Cantet
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Accuracy of estimated breeding values with genomic information on males, females, or both: an example on broiler chicken.

Authors:  Daniela A L Lourenco; Breno O Fragomeni; Shogo Tsuruta; Ignacio Aguilar; Birgit Zumbach; Rachel J Hawken; Andres Legarra; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 4.297

4.  Genomic regions and pathways associated with gastrointestinal parasites resistance in Santa Inês breed adapted to tropical climate.

Authors:  Mariana Piatto Berton; Rafael Medeiros de Oliveira Silva; Elisa Peripolli; Nedenia Bonvino Stafuzza; Jesús Fernández Martin; Maria Saura Álvarez; Beatriz Villanueva Gavinã; Miguel Angel Toro; Georgget Banchero; Priscila Silva Oliveira; Joanir Pereira Eler; Fernando Baldi; José Bento Sterman Ferraz
Journal:  J Anim Sci Biotechnol       Date:  2017-09-04

5.  Forensic use of the genomic relationship matrix to validate and discover livestock pedigrees.

Authors:  Kirsty Lee Moore; Conrad Vilela; Karolina Kaseja; Raphael Mrode; Mike Coffey
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Detecting the dominance component of heritability in isolated and outbred human populations.

Authors:  Anthony F Herzig; Teresa Nutile; Daniela Ruggiero; Marina Ciullo; Hervé Perdry; Anne-Louise Leutenegger
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-12-21       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Prediction of genetic value for sweet cherry fruit maturity among environments using a 6K SNP array.

Authors:  Craig M Hardner; Ben J Hayes; Satish Kumar; Stijn Vanderzande; Lichun Cai; Julia Piaskowski; José Quero-Garcia; José Antonio Campoy; Teresa Barreneche; Daniela Giovannini; Alessandro Liverani; Gérard Charlot; Miguel Villamil-Castro; Nnadozie Oraguzie; Cameron P Peace
Journal:  Hortic Res       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 6.793

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.