Literature DB >> 30107560

The impact of selective genotyping on the response to selection using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction.

Jeremy T Howard1, Tom A Rathje2, Caitlyn E Bruns2, Danielle F Wilson-Wells2, Stephen D Kachman3, Matthew L Spangler1.   

Abstract

Across the majority livestock species, routinely collected genomic and pedigree information has been incorporated into evaluations using single-step methods. As a result, strategies that reduce genotyping costs without reducing the response to selection are important as they could have substantial economic impacts on breeding programs. Therefore, the objective of the current study was to investigate the impact of selectively genotyping selection candidates on the selection response using simulation. Populations were simulated to mimic the genome and population structure of a swine and cattle population undergoing selection on an index comprised of the estimated breeding values (EBV) for 2 genetically correlated quantitative traits. Ten generations were generated and genotyping began generation 7. Two phenotyping scenarios were simulated that assumed the first trait was recorded early in life on all individuals and the second trait was recorded on all versus a random subset of the individuals. The EBV were generated from a bivariate animal model. Multiple genotyping scenarios were generated that ranged from not genotyping any selection candidates, a proportion of the selection candidates based on either their index value or chosen at random, and genotyping all selection candidates. An interim index value was utilized to decide who to genotype for the selective genotype strategy. The interim value assumed only the first trait was observed and the only genotypic information available was on animals in previous generations. Within each genotyping scenario 25 replicates were generated. Within each genotyping scenario the mean response per generation and the degree to which EBV were inflated/deflated was calculated. Across both species and phenotyping strategies, the plateau of diminishing returns was observed when 60% of the selection candidates with the largest index values were genotyped. When randomly genotyping selection candidates, either 80 or 100% of the selection candidates needed to be genotyped for there not to be a reduction in the index response. Across both populations, no differences in the degree that EBV were inflated/deflated for either trait 1 or 2 were observed between nongenotyped and genotyped animals. The current study has shown that animals can be selectively genotyped in order to optimize the response to selection as a function of the cost to conduct a breeding program using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30107560      PMCID: PMC6247857          DOI: 10.1093/jas/sky330

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


  18 in total

1.  Genomic selection strategies in dairy cattle: Strong positive interaction between use of genotypic information and intensive use of young bulls on genetic gain.

Authors:  L H Buch; M K Sørensen; P Berg; L D Pedersen; A C Sørensen
Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 2.380

2.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.

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

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.  Single-step genomic evaluation using multitrait random regression model and test-day data.

Authors:  M Koivula; I Strandén; J Pösö; G P Aamand; E A Mäntysaari
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2015-02-07       Impact factor: 4.034

5.  Genomic selection for maternal traits in pigs.

Authors:  M Lillehammer; T H E Meuwissen; A K Sonesson
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2011-08-12       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Accounting for genomic pre-selection in national BLUP evaluations in dairy cattle.

Authors:  Clotilde Patry; Vincent Ducrocq
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2011-08-18       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  An indirect approach to the extensive calculation of relationship coefficients.

Authors:  Jean-Jacques Colleau
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  The effect of the H-1 scaling factors τ and ω on the structure of H in the single-step procedure.

Authors:  Johannes W R Martini; Matias F Schrauf; Carolina A Garcia-Baccino; Eduardo C G Pimentel; Sebastian Munilla; Andres Rogberg-Muñoz; Rodolfo J C Cantet; Christian Reimer; Ning Gao; Valentin Wimmer; Henner Simianer
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2018-04-13       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped.

Authors:  Ole F Christensen; Mogens S Lund
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2010-01-27       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  A Bayesian method and its variational approximation for prediction of genomic breeding values in multiple traits.

Authors:  Takeshi Hayashi; Hiroyoshi Iwata
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 3.169

View more
  6 in total

1.  The impact of reducing the frequency of animals genotyped at higher density on imputation and prediction accuracies using ssGBLUP1.

Authors:  Bruna P Sollero; Jeremy T Howard; Matthew L Spangler
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Optimizing the Construction and Update Strategies for the Genomic Selection of Pig Reference and Candidate Populations in China.

Authors:  Xia Wei; Tian Zhang; Ligang Wang; Longchao Zhang; Xinhua Hou; Hua Yan; Lixian Wang
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Bias in variance component estimation in swine crossbreeding schemes using selective genotyping and phenotyping strategies.

Authors:  Garrett M See; Benny E Mote; Matthew L Spangler
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 3.338

4.  Effect of genotyping strategies on the sustained benefit of single-step genomic BLUP over multiple generations.

Authors:  Milagros Sánchez-Mayor; Valentina Riggio; Pau Navarro; Beatriz Gutiérrez-Gil; Chris S Haley; Luis Fernando De la Fuente; Juan-José Arranz; Ricardo Pong-Wong
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 4.297

5.  Selective genotyping and phenotypic data inclusion strategies of crossbred progeny for combined crossbred and purebred selection in swine breeding.

Authors:  Garrett M See; Benny E Mote; Matthew L Spangler
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Simulation studies to optimize genomic selection in honey bees.

Authors:  Richard Bernstein; Manuel Du; Andreas Hoppe; Kaspar Bienefeld
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2021-07-29       Impact factor: 4.297

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.