Literature DB >> 29385460

Weighting genomic and genealogical information for genetic parameter estimation and breeding value prediction in tropical beef cattle.

Fernanda S S Raidan1, Laercio R Porto-Neto1, Yutao Li1, Sigrid A Lehnert1, Antonio Reverter1.   

Abstract

A combined matrix that exploits genealogy together with marker-based information could improve the selection of elite individuals in breeding programs. We present genetic parameters for adaptive and growth traits in beef cattle by exploring linear combinations of pedigree-based (A) and marker-based (G) relationship matrices. We use a data set with 2,111 Brahman (BB) and 2,550 Tropical Composite (TC) cattle with genotypes for 729,068 SNP, and phenotypes for five traits. A weighted relationship matrix (WRM) combining G and A was constructed as WRM = λG + (1 - λ)A. The weight (λ) was explored at values from 0.0 to 1.0, at 0.1 intervals. Additionally, four alternative G matrices, in the WRM, were evaluated according to the selection of SNP used to generate them: 1) Gw: all autosomal SNP with minor allele frequency (MAF) > 1%; 2) Gg: autosomal SNP with MAF > 1% and mapped inside to gene coding regions; 3) Gp: autosomal SNP with MAF > 1% and previously reported to have significant pleiotropic effect in these two populations; and 4) Gc: autosomal SNP with MAF > 1% and with significant correlated effects previously reported in both BB and TC populations. In addition, two A matrices were evaluated: 1) A: all relationships between animals were considered after tracing back known ancestors; and 2) Ad: a distorted A matrix where a random 1% of the off-diagonal nonzero values were set to zero to simulate relationship errors. Five independent Ad matrices were explored each with a different random 1% of relationships masked. Criteria for comparing the resulting WRM included estimates of heritability (h2) and cross-validation accuracy (ACC) of genomic estimated breeding values. The choice of WRM had a greater impact on h2 than on ACC estimates. The 1% errors introduced in pedigree relationships generated large distortion in genetic parameters and ACC estimates. However, employing a λ > 0.7 was an efficient mechanism to compensate for the errors in A. Additionally, although significant (P-value < 0.0001), we found no consistent relationship between the type of SNP used to compute G and h2 or ACC estimates. We devised the optimal value of λ for maximum h2 and ACC at λ = 0.7 suggesting a 70% and 30% weighting to genomic and genealogical information, respectively, as an optimal strategy to compensate for pedigree errors, to improve genetic parameters estimates and lead to more accurate selection decisions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29385460      PMCID: PMC6140871          DOI: 10.1093/jas/skx027

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


  14 in total

1.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.

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

2.  Experiences with a single-step genome evaluation.

Authors:  Ignacy Misztal; Samuel E Aggrey; William M Muir
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score.

Authors:  I Aguilar; I Misztal; D L Johnson; A Legarra; S Tsuruta; T J Lawlor
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.034

4.  Genomic prediction unifies animal and plant breeding programs to form platforms for biological discovery.

Authors:  John M Hickey; Tinashe Chiurugwi; Ian Mackay; Wayne Powell
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 38.330

5.  Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single-step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population.

Authors:  Hongding Gao; Ole F Christensen; Per Madsen; Ulrik S Nielsen; Yuan Zhang; Mogens S Lund; Guosheng Su
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 4.297

6.  Combining genomic and genealogical information in a reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces regression model for genome-enabled predictions in dairy cattle.

Authors:  Silvia Teresa Rodríguez-Ramilo; Luis Alberto García-Cortés; Oscar González-Recio
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Whole-genome sequence-based genomic prediction in laying chickens with different genomic relationship matrices to account for genetic architecture.

Authors:  Guiyan Ni; David Cavero; Anna Fangmann; Malena Erbe; Henner Simianer
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  A predictive assessment of genetic correlations between traits in chickens using markers.

Authors:  Mehdi Momen; Ahmad Ayatollahi Mehrgardi; Ayoub Sheikhy; Ali Esmailizadeh; Masood Asadi Fozi; Andreas Kranis; Bruno D Valente; Guilherme J M Rosa; Daniel Gianola
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Development and characterization of a high density SNP genotyping assay for cattle.

Authors:  Lakshmi K Matukumalli; Cynthia T Lawley; Robert D Schnabel; Jeremy F Taylor; Mark F Allan; Michael P Heaton; Jeff O'Connell; Stephen S Moore; Timothy P L Smith; Tad S Sonstegard; Curtis P Van Tassell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Genomic correlation: harnessing the benefit of combining two unrelated populations for genomic selection.

Authors:  Laercio R Porto-Neto; William Barendse; John M Henshall; Sean M McWilliam; Sigrid A Lehnert; Antonio Reverter
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-11-02       Impact factor: 4.297

View more
  2 in total

1.  Evaluation of nonadditive effects in yearling weight of tropical beef cattle.

Authors:  Fernanda S S Raidan; Laercio R Porto-Neto; Yutao Li; Sigrid A Lehnert; Zulma G Vitezica; Antonio Reverter
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Changes in genetic parameters for fitness and growth traits in pigs under genomic selection.

Authors:  Jorge Hidalgo; Shogo Tsuruta; Daniela Lourenco; Yutaka Masuda; Yijian Huang; Kent A Gray; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 3.159

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.