Literature DB >> 32497209

Genomic prediction using pooled data in a single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction framework.

Johnna L Baller1, Stephen D Kachman2, Larry A Kuehn3, Matthew L Spangler1.   

Abstract

Economically relevant traits are routinely collected within the commercial segments of the beef industry but are rarely included in genetic evaluations because of unknown pedigrees. Individual relationships could be resurrected with genomics, but this would be costly; therefore, pooling DNA and phenotypic data provide a cost-effective solution. Pedigree, phenotypic, and genomic data were simulated for a beef cattle population consisting of 15 generations. Genotypes mimicked a 50k marker panel (841 quantitative trait loci were located across the genome, approximately once per 3 Mb) and the phenotype was moderately heritable. Individuals from generation 15 were included in pools (observed genotype and phenotype were mean values of a group). Estimated breeding values (EBV) were generated from a single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction model. The effects of pooling strategy (random and minimizing or uniformly maximizing phenotypic variation within pools), pool size (1, 2, 10, 20, 50, 100, or no data from generation 15), and generational gaps of genotyping on EBV accuracy (correlation of EBV with true breeding values) were quantified. Greatest EBV accuracies of sires and dams were observed when there was no gap between genotyped parents and pooled offspring. The EBV accuracies resulting from pools were usually greater than no data from generation 15 regardless of sire or dam genotyping. Minimizing phenotypic variation increased EBV accuracy by 8% and 9% over random pooling and uniformly maximizing phenotypic variation, respectively. A pool size of 2 was the only scenario that did not significantly decrease EBV accuracy compared with individual data when pools were formed randomly or by uniformly maximizing phenotypic variation (P > 0.05). Pool sizes of 2, 10, 20, or 50 did not generally lead to statistical differences in EBV accuracy than individual data when pools were constructed to minimize phenotypic variation (P > 0.05). Largest numerical increases in EBV accuracy resulting from pooling compared with no data from generation 15 were seen with sires with prior low EBV accuracy (those born in generation 14). Pooling of any size led to larger EBV accuracies of the pools than individual data when minimizing phenotypic variation. Resulting EBV for the pools could be used to inform management decisions of those pools. Pooled genotyping to garner commercial-level phenotypes for genetic evaluations seems plausible although differences exist depending on pool size and pool formation strategy. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DNA pooling; beef cattle; genomic prediction

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32497209      PMCID: PMC7314383          DOI: 10.1093/jas/skaa184

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


  26 in total

1.  DNA pooling identifies QTLs on chromosome 4 for general cognitive ability in children.

Authors:  P J Fisher; D Turic; N M Williams; P McGuffin; P Asherson; D Ball; I Craig; T Eley; L Hill; K Chorney; M J Chorney; C P Benbow; D Lubinski; R Plomin; M J Owen
Journal:  Hum Mol Genet       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 6.150

Review 2.  DNA Pooling: a tool for large-scale association studies.

Authors:  Pak Sham; Joel S Bader; Ian Craig; Michael O'Donovan; Michael Owen
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 53.242

3.  Y are you not pregnant: identification of Y chromosome segments in female cattle with decreased reproductive efficiency.

Authors:  T G McDaneld; L A Kuehn; M G Thomas; W M Snelling; T S Sonstegard; L K Matukumalli; T P L Smith; E J Pollak; J W Keele
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2012-03-09       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  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

5.  The impact of clustering methods for cross-validation, choice of phenotypes, and genotyping strategies on the accuracy of genomic predictions.

Authors:  Johnna L Baller; Jeremy T Howard; Stephen D Kachman; Matthew L Spangler
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-04-03       Impact factor: 3.159

6.  Geno-Diver: A combined coalescence and forward-in-time simulator for populations undergoing selection for complex traits.

Authors:  J T Howard; F Tiezzi; J E Pryce; C Maltecca
Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet       Date:  2017-05-02       Impact factor: 2.380

7.  Comparison of selective genotyping strategies for prediction of breeding values in a population undergoing selection.

Authors:  A A Boligon; N Long; L G Albuquerque; K A Weigel; D Gianola; G J M Rosa
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 3.159

8.  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

9.  Genetic evaluation using single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in American Angus.

Authors:  D A L Lourenco; S Tsuruta; B O Fragomeni; Y Masuda; I Aguilar; A Legarra; J K Bertrand; T S Amen; L Wang; D W Moser; I Misztal
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 3.159

10.  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

View more
  2 in total

1.  Genome-wide association mapping identifies common bunt (Tilletia caries) resistance loci in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) accessions of the USDA National Small Grains Collection.

Authors:  Magdalena Ehn; Sebastian Michel; Laura Morales; Tyler Gordon; Hermann Gregor Dallinger; Hermann Buerstmayr
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 5.574

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

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.