Literature DB >> 31431471

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

Herman A Mulder1, Sang Hong Lee2,3, Sam Clark2, Ben J Hayes4, Julius H J van der Werf2.   

Abstract

De novo mutations (DNM) create new genetic variance and are an important driver for long-term selection response. We hypothesized that genomic selection exploits mutational variance less than traditional selection methods such as mass selection or selection on pedigree-based breeding values, because DNM in selection candidates are not captured when the selection candidates' own phenotype is not used in genomic selection, DNM are not on SNP chips and DNM are not in linkage disequilibrium with the SNP on the chip. We tested this hypothesis with Monte Carlo simulation. From whole-genome sequence data, a subset of ∼300,000 variants was used that served as putative markers, quantitative trait loci or DNM. We simulated 20 generations with truncation selection based on breeding values from genomic best linear unbiased prediction without (GBLUP_no_OP) or with own phenotype (GBLUP_OP), pedigree-based BLUP without (BLUP_no_OP) or with own phenotype (BLUP_OP), or directly on phenotype. GBLUP_OP was the best strategy in exploiting mutational variance, while GBLUP_no_OP and BLUP_no_OP were the worst in exploiting mutational variance. The crucial element is that GBLUP_no_OP and BLUP_no_OP puts no selection pressure on DNM in selection candidates. Genetic variance decreased faster with GBLUP_no_OP and GBLUP_OP than with BLUP_no_OP, BLUP_OP or mass selection. The distribution of mutational effects, mutational variance, number of DNM per individual and nonadditivity had a large impact on mutational selection response and mutational genetic variance, but not on ranking of selection strategies. We advocate that more sustainable genomic selection strategies are required to optimize long-term selection response and to maintain genetic diversity.
Copyright © 2019 by the Genetics Society of America.

Keywords:  de novo mutation; genetic variance; genomic selection; response to selection; selection strategies

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31431471      PMCID: PMC6781905          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.119.302336

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.562


  55 in total

1.  Simultaneous Estimation of Additive and Mutational Genetic Variance in an Outbred Population of Drosophila serrata.

Authors:  Katrina McGuigan; J David Aguirre; Mark W Blows
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Within-generation mutation variance for litter size in inbred mice.

Authors:  Joaquim Casellas; Juan F Medrano
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2008-07-27       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  PHENOTYPIC EVOLUTION BY NEUTRAL MUTATION.

Authors:  Michael Lynch; William G Hill
Journal:  Evolution       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 3.694

4.  Estimation of genetic gain in milk yield by selection in a closed herd of dairy cattle.

Authors:  J M RENDEL; A ROBERTSON
Journal:  J Genet       Date:  1950-06       Impact factor: 1.166

5.  Is Continued Genetic Improvement of Livestock Sustainable?

Authors:  William G Hill
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for cattle stature identifies common genes that regulate body size in mammals.

Authors:  Aniek C Bouwman; Hans D Daetwyler; Amanda J Chamberlain; Carla Hurtado Ponce; Mehdi Sargolzaei; Flavio S Schenkel; Goutam Sahana; Armelle Govignon-Gion; Simon Boitard; Marlies Dolezal; Hubert Pausch; Rasmus F Brøndum; Phil J Bowman; Bo Thomsen; Bernt Guldbrandtsen; Mogens S Lund; Bertrand Servin; Dorian J Garrick; James Reecy; Johanna Vilkki; Alessandro Bagnato; Min Wang; Jesse L Hoff; Robert D Schnabel; Jeremy F Taylor; Anna A E Vinkhuyzen; Frank Panitz; Christian Bendixen; Lars-Erik Holm; Birgit Gredler; Chris Hozé; Mekki Boussaha; Marie-Pierre Sanchez; Dominique Rocha; Aurelien Capitan; Thierry Tribout; Anne Barbat; Pascal Croiseau; Cord Drögemüller; Vidhya Jagannathan; Christy Vander Jagt; John J Crowley; Anna Bieber; Deirdre C Purfield; Donagh P Berry; Reiner Emmerling; Kay-Uwe Götz; Mirjam Frischknecht; Ingolf Russ; Johann Sölkner; Curtis P Van Tassell; Ruedi Fries; Paul Stothard; Roel F Veerkamp; Didier Boichard; Mike E Goddard; Ben J Hayes
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 38.330

7.  A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing.

Authors:  Gonçalo R Abecasis; David Altshuler; Adam Auton; Lisa D Brooks; Richard M Durbin; Richard A Gibbs; Matt E Hurles; Gil A McVean
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 49.962

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

Authors:  M Heidaritabar; A Vereijken; W M Muir; T Meuwissen; H Cheng; H-J Megens; M A M Groenen; J W M Bastiaansen
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 3.821

9.  MTG2: an efficient algorithm for multivariate linear mixed model analysis based on genomic information.

Authors:  S H Lee; J H J van der Werf
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2016-01-10       Impact factor: 6.937

10.  Fixed-length haplotypes can improve genomic prediction accuracy in an admixed dairy cattle population.

Authors:  Melanie Hess; Tom Druet; Andrew Hess; Dorian Garrick
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 4.297

View more
  2 in total

1.  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

2.  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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.