Literature DB >> 32428206

In silico validation of pooled genotyping strategies for genomic evaluation in Angus cattle.

Pâmela A Alexandre1, Antonio Reverter1, Sigrid A Lehnert1, Laercio R Porto-Neto1, Sonja Dominik2.   

Abstract

In this study, we aimed to assess the value of genotyping DNA pools as a strategy to generate accurate and cost-effective genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) of sires in multi-sire mating systems. In order to do that, we used phenotypic records of 2,436 Australian Angus cattle from 174 sires, including yearling weight (YWT; N = 1,589 records), coat score (COAT; N = 2,026 records), and Meat Standards Australia marbling score (MARB; N = 1,304 records). Phenotypes were adjusted for fixed effects and age at measurement and pools of 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 animals were explored. Pools were created either by phenotype or at random. When pools were created at random, 10 replicates were examined to provide a measure of sampling variation. The relative accuracy of each pooling strategy was measured by the Pearson correlation coefficient between the sire's GEBV with pooled progeny and the GEBV using individually genotyped progeny. Random pools allow the computation of sire GEBV that are, on average, moderately correlated (i.e., r > 0.5 at pool sizes [PS] ≤ 10) with those obtained without pooling. However, for pools assigned at random, the difference between the best and the worst relative accuracy obtained out of the 10 replicates was as high as 0.41 for YWT, 0.36 for COAT, and 0.61 for MARB. This uncertainty associated with the relative accuracy of GEBV makes randomly assigning animals to pools an unreliable approach. In contrast, pooling by phenotype allowed the estimation of sires' GEBV with a relative accuracy ≥ 0.9 at PS < 10 for all three phenotypes. Moreover, even with larger PS, the lowest relative accuracy obtained was 0.88 (YWT, PS = 20). In agreement with results using simulated data, we conclude that pooling by phenotype is a robust approach to implementing genomic evaluation using commercial herd data, and PS larger than 10 individuals can be considered.
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA pooling; beef cattle; genomic selection; hybrid genomic relationship matrix

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32428206      PMCID: PMC7276671          DOI: 10.1093/jas/skaa170

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


  12 in total

1.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.

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

Review 2.  The future of livestock breeding: genomic selection for efficiency, reduced emissions intensity, and adaptation.

Authors:  Ben J Hayes; Harris A Lewin; Michael E Goddard
Journal:  Trends Genet       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 11.639

3.  Is Continued Genetic Improvement of Livestock Sustainable?

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

4.  Genomic analyses of tropical beef cattle fertility based on genotyping pools of Brahman cows with unknown pedigree.

Authors:  A Reverter; L R Porto-Neto; M R S Fortes; R McCulloch; R E Lyons; S Moore; D Nicol; J Henshall; S A Lehnert
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.159

5.  Pooled genotyping strategies for the rapid construction of genomic reference populations1.

Authors:  Pâmela A Alexandre; Laercio R Porto-Neto; Emre Karaman; Sigrid A Lehnert; Antonio Reverter
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  The use of communal rearing of families and DNA pooling in aquaculture genomic selection schemes.

Authors:  Anna K Sonesson; Theo H E Meuwissen; Michael E Goddard
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  The genetic architecture of climatic adaptation of tropical cattle.

Authors:  Laercio R Porto-Neto; Antonio Reverter; Kishore C Prayaga; Eva K F Chan; David J Johnston; Rachel J Hawken; Geoffry Fordyce; Jose Fernando Garcia; Tad S Sonstegard; Sunduimijid Bolormaa; Michael E Goddard; Heather M Burrow; John M Henshall; Sigrid A Lehnert; William Barendse
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-24       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Estimating the genetic merit of sires by using pooled DNA from progeny of undetermined pedigree.

Authors:  Amy M Bell; John M Henshall; Laercio R Porto-Neto; Sonja Dominik; Russell McCulloch; James Kijas; Sigrid A Lehnert
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2017-02-28       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Genomic Prediction Using Multi-trait Weighted GBLUP Accounting for Heterogeneous Variances and Covariances Across the Genome.

Authors:  Emre Karaman; Mogens S Lund; Mahlet T Anche; Luc Janss; Guosheng Su
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 3.154

10.  The Meat Standards Australia Index indicates beef carcass quality.

Authors:  P McGilchrist; R J Polkinghorne; A J Ball; J M Thompson
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  3 in total

1.  Genotyping crossing parents and family bulks can facilitate cost-efficient genomic prediction strategies in small-scale line breeding programs.

Authors:  Sebastian Michel; Franziska Löschenberger; Christian Ametz; Hermann Bürstmayr
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2021-02-27       Impact factor: 5.699

2.  Using pooled data for genomic prediction in a bivariate framework with missing data.

Authors:  Johnna L Baller; Stephen D Kachman; Larry A Kuehn; Matthew L Spangler
Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet       Date:  2022-06-14       Impact factor: 3.271

3.  Estimating heritability using family-pooled phenotypic and genotypic data: a simulation study applied to aquaculture.

Authors:  Nima Khalilisamani; Peter Campbell Thomson; Herman Willem Raadsma; Mehar Singh Khatkar
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2022-01-31       Impact factor: 3.821

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.