Literature DB >> 25074573

Systematic differences in the response of genetic variation to pedigree and genome-based selection methods.

M Heidaritabar1, A Vereijken2, W M Muir3, T Meuwissen4, H Cheng5, H-J Megens1, M A M Groenen1, J W M Bastiaansen1.   

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) is a DNA-based method of selecting for quantitative traits in animal and plant breeding, and offers a potentially superior alternative to traditional breeding methods that rely on pedigree and phenotype information. Using a 60 K SNP chip with markers spaced throughout the entire chicken genome, we compared the impact of GS and traditional BLUP (best linear unbiased prediction) selection methods applied side-by-side in three different lines of egg-laying chickens. Differences were demonstrated between methods, both at the level and genomic distribution of allele frequency changes. In all three lines, the average allele frequency changes were larger with GS, 0.056 0.064 and 0.066, compared with BLUP, 0.044, 0.045 and 0.036 for lines B1, B2 and W1, respectively. With BLUP, 35 selected regions (empirical P < 0.05) were identified across the three lines. With GS, 70 selected regions were identified. Empirical thresholds for local allele frequency changes were determined from gene dropping, and differed considerably between GS (0.167-0.198) and BLUP (0.105-0.126). Between lines, the genomic regions with large changes in allele frequencies showed limited overlap. Our results show that GS applies selection pressure much more locally than BLUP, resulting in larger allele frequency changes. With these results, novel insights into the nature of selection on quantitative traits have been gained and important questions regarding the long-term impact of GS are raised. The rapid changes to a part of the genetic architecture, while another part may not be selected, at least in the short term, require careful consideration, especially when selection occurs before phenotypes are observed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25074573      PMCID: PMC4815587          DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2014.55

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)        ISSN: 0018-067X            Impact factor:   3.821


  27 in total

Review 1.  Genetic hitchhiking.

Authors:  N H Barton
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2000-11-29       Impact factor: 6.237

2.  Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps.

Authors:  T H Meuwissen; B J Hayes; M E Goddard
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Detecting recent positive selection in the human genome from haplotype structure.

Authors:  Pardis C Sabeti; David E Reich; John M Higgins; Haninah Z P Levine; Daniel J Richter; Stephen F Schaffner; Stacey B Gabriel; Jill V Platko; Nick J Patterson; Gavin J McDonald; Hans C Ackerman; Sarah J Campbell; David Altshuler; Richard Cooper; Dominic Kwiatkowski; Ryk Ward; Eric S Lander
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-10-09       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Maximizing genetic gain over multiple generations with quantitative trait locus selection and control of inbreeding.

Authors:  B Villanueva; J C M Dekkers; J A Woolliams; P Settar
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 5.  Commercial application of marker- and gene-assisted selection in livestock: strategies and lessons.

Authors:  J C M Dekkers
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information.

Authors:  I Misztal; A Legarra; I Aguilar
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.034

7.  The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene.

Authors:  J M Smith; J Haigh
Journal:  Genet Res       Date:  1974-02       Impact factor: 1.588

8.  Testing strategies for genomic selection in aquaculture breeding programs.

Authors:  Anna K Sonesson; Theo H E Meuwissen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Long-term response to genomic selection: effects of estimation method and reference population structure for different genetic architectures.

Authors:  John W M Bastiaansen; Albart Coster; Mario P L Calus; Johan A M van Arendonk; Henk Bovenhuis
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2012-01-24       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Allele frequency changes due to hitch-hiking in genomic selection programs.

Authors:  Huiming Liu; Anders C Sørensen; Theo H E Meuwissen; Peer Berg
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 4.297

View more
  10 in total

1.  The Impact of Genomic and Traditional Selection on the Contribution of Mutational Variance to Long-Term Selection Response and Genetic Variance.

Authors:  Herman A Mulder; Sang Hong Lee; Sam Clark; Ben J Hayes; Julius H J van der Werf
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  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

3.  Using genome-wide measures of coancestry to maintain diversity and fitness in endangered and domestic pig populations.

Authors:  Mirte Bosse; Hendrik-Jan Megens; Ole Madsen; Richard P M A Crooijmans; Oliver A Ryder; Frédéric Austerlitz; Martien A M Groenen; M Angeles R de Cara
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 9.043

4.  Artificial selection with traditional or genomic relationships: consequences in coancestry and genetic diversity.

Authors:  Silvia Teresa Rodríguez-Ramilo; Luis Alberto García-Cortés; María Ángeles Rodríguez de Cara
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 4.599

Review 5.  Methods to address poultry robustness and welfare issues through breeding and associated ethical considerations.

Authors:  William M Muir; Heng-Wei Cheng; Candace Croney
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 4.599

6.  Genome-Wide Characterization of Selection Signatures and Runs of Homozygosity in Ugandan Goat Breeds.

Authors:  Robert B Onzima; Maulik R Upadhyay; Harmen P Doekes; Luiz F Brito; Mirte Bosse; Egbert Kanis; Martien A M Groenen; Richard P M A Crooijmans
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 4.599

7.  The long-term effects of genomic selection: 1. Response to selection, additive genetic variance, and genetic architecture.

Authors:  Yvonne C J Wientjes; Piter Bijma; Mario P L Calus; Bas J Zwaan; Zulma G Vitezica; Joost van den Heuvel
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  Artificial selection on introduced Asian haplotypes shaped the genetic architecture in European commercial pigs.

Authors:  Mirte Bosse; Marcos S Lopes; Ole Madsen; Hendrik-Jan Megens; Richard P M A Crooijmans; Laurent A F Frantz; Barbara Harlizius; John W M Bastiaansen; Martien A M Groenen
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2015-12-22       Impact factor: 5.349

9.  Trends in genome-wide and region-specific genetic diversity in the Dutch-Flemish Holstein-Friesian breeding program from 1986 to 2015.

Authors:  Harmen P Doekes; Roel F Veerkamp; Piter Bijma; Sipke J Hiemstra; Jack J Windig
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2018-04-11       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Favorable Conditions for Genomic Evaluation to Outperform Classical Pedigree Evaluation Highlighted by a Proof-of-Concept Study in Poplar.

Authors:  Marie Pégard; Vincent Segura; Facundo Muñoz; Catherine Bastien; Véronique Jorge; Leopoldo Sanchez
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2020-10-28       Impact factor: 5.753

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.