Literature DB >> 29373745

Modeling heterotic effects in beef cattle using genome-wide SNP-marker genotypes.

Everestus C Akanno1, Mohammed K Abo-Ismail1,2, Liuhong Chen1, John J Crowley1,3, Zhiquan Wang1, Changxi Li1,4, John A Basarab1,5, Michael D MacNeil1,6,7, Graham S Plastow1.   

Abstract

An objective of commercial beef cattle crossbreeding programs is to simultaneously optimize use of additive (breed differences) and non-additive (heterosis) effects. A total of 6,794 multibreed and crossbred beef cattle with phenotype and Illumina BovineSNP50 genotype data were used to predict genomic heterosis for growth and carcass traits by applying two methods assumed to be linearly proportional to heterosis. The methods were as follows: 1) retained heterozygosity predicted from genomic breed fractions (HET1) and 2) deviation of adjusted crossbred phenotype from midparent value (HET2). Comparison of methods was based on prediction accuracy from cross-validation. Here, a mutually exclusive random sampling of all crossbred animals (n = 5,327) was performed to form five groups replicated five times with approximately 1,065 animals per group. In each run within a replicate, one group was assigned as a validation set, while the remaining four groups were combined to form the reference set. The phenotype of the animals in the validation set was assumed to be unknown; thus, it resulted in every animal having heterosis values that were predicted without using its own phenotype, allowing their adjusted phenotype to be used for validation. The same approach was used to test the impact of predicted heterosis on accuracy of genomic breeding values (GBV). The results showed positive heterotic effects for growth traits but not for carcass traits that reflect the importance of heterosis for growth traits in beef cattle. Heterosis predicted by HET1 method resulted in less variable estimates that were mostly within the range of estimates generated by HET2. Prediction accuracy was greater for HET2 (0.37-0.98) than HET1 (0.34-0.43). Proper consideration of heterosis in genomic evaluation models has debatable effects on accuracy of EBV predictions. However, opportunity exists for predicting heterosis, improving accuracy of genomic selection, and consequently optimizing crossbreeding programs in beef cattle.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29373745      PMCID: PMC6093554          DOI: 10.1093/jas/skx002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  29 in total

Review 1.  Heterosis: revisiting the magic.

Authors:  Zachary B Lippman; Dani Zamir
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2006-12-22       Impact factor: 11.639

2.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.

Authors:  P M VanRaden
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.034

3.  Prediction of heterosis using genome-wide SNP-marker data: application to egg production traits in white Leghorn crosses.

Authors:  E N Amuzu-Aweh; P Bijma; B P Kinghorn; A Vereijken; J Visscher; J Am van Arendonk; H Bovenhuis
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2013-10-09       Impact factor: 3.821

4.  On the additive and dominant variance and covariance of individuals within the genomic selection scope.

Authors:  Zulma G Vitezica; Luis Varona; Andres Legarra
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2013-10-11       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Multi-population Genomic Relationships for Estimating Current Genetic Variances Within and Genetic Correlations Between Populations.

Authors:  Yvonne C J Wientjes; Piter Bijma; Jérémie Vandenplas; Mario P L Calus
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2017-08-16       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Accuracy of predicting genomic breeding values for residual feed intake in Angus and Charolais beef cattle.

Authors:  L Chen; F Schenkel; M Vinsky; D H Crews; C Li
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.159

7.  Genetic and phenotypic parameters for carcass and meat quality traits in commercial crossbred pigs.

Authors:  Y Miar; G S Plastow; S S Moore; G Manafiazar; P Charagu; R A Kemp; B Van Haandel; A E Huisman; C Y Zhang; R M McKay; H L Bruce; Z Wang
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 3.159

8.  Comparisons of Angus-, Braunvieh-, Chianina-, Hereford-, Gelbvieh-, Maine Anjou-, and Red Poll-sired cows for weight, weight adjusted for body condition score, height, and body condition score.

Authors:  J A Arango; L V Cundiff; L D Van Vleck
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 3.159

9.  A new approach for efficient genotype imputation using information from relatives.

Authors:  Mehdi Sargolzaei; Jacques P Chesnais; Flavio S Schenkel
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 3.969

10.  A whole-genome assembly of the domestic cow, Bos taurus.

Authors:  Aleksey V Zimin; Arthur L Delcher; Liliana Florea; David R Kelley; Michael C Schatz; Daniela Puiu; Finnian Hanrahan; Geo Pertea; Curtis P Van Tassell; Tad S Sonstegard; Guillaume Marçais; Michael Roberts; Poorani Subramanian; James A Yorke; Steven L Salzberg
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2009-04-24       Impact factor: 13.583

View more
  7 in total

1.  Evaluation of a genomic-enhanced sorting system for feeder cattle1.

Authors:  Everestus C Akanno; Chinyere Ekine-Dzivenu; Liuhong Chen; Michael Vinsky; Mohammed K Abo-Ismail; Michael D MacNeil; Graham Plastow; John Basarab; Changxi Li; Carolyn Fitzsimmons
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Characterization of water intake and water efficiency in beef cattle1,2.

Authors:  Cashley M Ahlberg; Kristi Allwardt; Ashley Broocks; Kelsey Bruno; Alexandra Taylor; Levi Mcphillips; Clint R Krehbiel; Michelle Calvo-Lorenzo; Chris J Richards; Sara E Place; Udaya Desilva; Deborah L Vanoverbeke; Raluca G Mateescu; Larry A Kuehn; Robert Weaber; Jennifer Bormann; Megan M Rolf
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Aquaculture Molecular Breeding Platform (AMBP): a comprehensive web server for genotype imputation and genetic analysis in aquaculture.

Authors:  Qifan Zeng; Baojun Zhao; Hao Wang; Mengqiu Wang; Mingxuan Teng; Jingjie Hu; Zhenmin Bao; Yangfan Wang
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 19.160

4.  Estimation of Genomic Breed Composition for Purebred and Crossbred Animals Using Sparsely Regularized Admixture Models.

Authors:  Yangfan Wang; Xiao-Lin Wu; Zhi Li; Zhenmin Bao; Richard G Tait; Stewart Bauck; Guilherme J M Rosa
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 4.599

5.  Population demographic history and population structure for Pakistani Nili-Ravi breeding bulls based on SNP genotyping to identify genomic regions associated with male effects for milk yield and body weight.

Authors:  Saher Islam; Umesh K Reddy; Purushothaman Natarajan; Venkata Lakshmi Abburi; Amna Arshad Bajwa; Muhammad Imran; Muhammad Yasir Zahoor; Muhammad Abdullah; Aamir Mehmood Bukhari; Sajid Iqbal; Kamran Ashraf; Asif Nadeem; Habibur Rehman; Imran Rashid; Wasim Shehzad
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  The impact of using different ancestral reference populations in assessing crossbred population admixture and influence on performance.

Authors:  Mohd A Jaafar; Bradley J Heins; Chad Dechow; Heather J Huson
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-09-26       Impact factor: 4.772

7.  Genome-wide association scan for heterotic quantitative trait loci in multi-breed and crossbred beef cattle.

Authors:  Everestus C Akanno; Liuhong Chen; Mohammed K Abo-Ismail; John J Crowley; Zhiquan Wang; Changxi Li; John A Basarab; Michael D MacNeil; Graham S Plastow
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 4.297

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.