Literature DB >> 27357473

Impact of fitting dominance and additive effects on accuracy of genomic prediction of breeding values in layers.

M Heidaritabar1,2, A Wolc3,4, J Arango4, J Zeng3, P Settar4, J E Fulton4, N P O'Sullivan4, J W M Bastiaansen5, R L Fernando3, D J Garrick3, J C M Dekkers3.   

Abstract

Most genomic prediction studies fit only additive effects in models to estimate genomic breeding values (GEBV). However, if dominance genetic effects are an important source of variation for complex traits, accounting for them may improve the accuracy of GEBV. We investigated the effect of fitting dominance and additive effects on the accuracy of GEBV for eight egg production and quality traits in a purebred line of brown layers using pedigree or genomic information (42K single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel). Phenotypes were corrected for the effect of hatch date. Additive and dominance genetic variances were estimated using genomic-based [genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP)-REML and BayesC] and pedigree-based (PBLUP-REML) methods. Breeding values were predicted using a model that included both additive and dominance effects and a model that included only additive effects. The reference population consisted of approximately 1800 animals hatched between 2004 and 2009, while approximately 300 young animals hatched in 2010 were used for validation. Accuracy of prediction was computed as the correlation between phenotypes and estimated breeding values of the validation animals divided by the square root of the estimate of heritability in the whole population. The proportion of dominance variance to total phenotypic variance ranged from 0.03 to 0.22 with PBLUP-REML across traits, from 0 to 0.03 with GBLUP-REML and from 0.01 to 0.05 with BayesC. Accuracies of GEBV ranged from 0.28 to 0.60 across traits. Inclusion of dominance effects did not improve the accuracy of GEBV, and differences in their accuracies between genomic-based methods were small (0.01-0.05), with GBLUP-REML yielding higher prediction accuracies than BayesC for egg production, egg colour and yolk weight, while BayesC yielded higher accuracies than GBLUP-REML for the other traits. In conclusion, fitting dominance effects did not impact accuracy of genomic prediction of breeding values in this population.
© 2016 Blackwell Verlag GmbH.

Keywords:  Additive effect; dominance effect; genomic selection; layer

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27357473     DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12225

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


  9 in total

1.  Maternal, dominance and additive genetic effects in Nile tilapia; influence on growth, fillet yield and body size traits.

Authors:  R Joshi; J A Woolliams; The Meuwissen; H M Gjøen
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2018-01-16       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  Estimation of additive and non-additive genetic variance component for growth traits in Adani goats.

Authors:  Seyed Abu Taleb Sadeghi; Mohammad Rokouei; Mehdi Vafaye Valleh; Mokhtar Ali Abbasi; Hadi Faraji-Arough
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2019-10-17       Impact factor: 1.559

3.  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

4.  Temporal and region-specific variations in genome-wide inbreeding effects on female size and reproduction traits of rainbow trout.

Authors:  Katy Paul; Jonathan D'Ambrosio; Florence Phocas
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 4.929

5.  Genomic selection models for directional dominance: an example for litter size in pigs.

Authors:  Luis Varona; Andrés Legarra; William Herring; Zulma G Vitezica
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2018-01-26       Impact factor: 4.297

Review 6.  Non-additive Effects in Genomic Selection.

Authors:  Luis Varona; Andres Legarra; Miguel A Toro; Zulma G Vitezica
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 4.599

7.  Genomic Prediction of Sunflower Hybrids Oil Content.

Authors:  Brigitte Mangin; Fanny Bonnafous; Nicolas Blanchet; Marie-Claude Boniface; Emmanuelle Bret-Mestries; Sébastien Carrère; Ludovic Cottret; Ludovic Legrand; Gwenola Marage; Prune Pegot-Espagnet; Stéphane Munos; Nicolas Pouilly; Felicity Vear; Patrick Vincourt; Nicolas B Langlade
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2017-09-21       Impact factor: 5.753

8.  Estimating dominance genetic variances for growth traits in American Angus males using genomic models.

Authors:  Carolina A Garcia-Baccino; Daniela A L Lourenco; Stephen Miller; Rodolfo J C Cantet; Zulma G Vitezica
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 3.159

9.  Evaluation of Genome-Enabled Prediction for Carcass Primal Cut Yields Using Single-Step Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction in Hanwoo Cattle.

Authors:  Masoumeh Naserkheil; Hossein Mehrban; Deukmin Lee; Mi Na Park
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-11-25       Impact factor: 4.096

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.