Literature DB >> 33560334

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

Garrett M See1, Benny E Mote1, Matthew L Spangler1.   

Abstract

Inclusion of crossbred (CB) data into traditionally purebred (PB) genetic evaluations has been shown to increase the response in CB performance. Currently, it is unrealistic to collect data on all CB animals in swine production systems, thus, a subset of CB animals must be selected to contribute genomic/phenotypic information. The aim of this study was to evaluate selective genotyping strategies in a simulated 3-way swine crossbreeding scheme. The swine crossbreeding scheme was simulated and produced 3-way CB animals for 6 generations with 3 distinct PB breeds each with 25 and 175 mating males and females, respectively. F1 crosses (400 mating females) produced 4,000 terminal CB progeny which were subjected to selective genotyping. The genome consisted of 18 chromosomes with 1,800 QTL and 72k SNP markers. Selection was performed using estimated breeding values (EBV) for CB performance. It was assumed that both PB and CB performance was moderately heritable (h2=0.4). Several scenarios altering the genetic correlation between PB and CB performance (rpc=0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7,or 0.9) were considered. CB animals were chosen based on phenotypes to select 200, 400, or 800 CB animals to genotype per generation. Selection strategies included: (1) Random: random selection, (2) Top: highest phenotype, (3) Bottom: lowest phenotype, (4) Extreme: half highest and half lowest phenotypes, and (5) Middle: average phenotype. Each selective genotyping strategy, except for Random, was considered by selecting animals in half-sib (HS) or full-sib (FS) families. The number of PB animals with genotypes and phenotypes each generation was fixed at 1,680. Each unique genotyping strategy and rpc scenario was replicated 10 times. Selection of CB animals based on the Extreme strategy resulted in the highest (P < 0.05) rates of genetic gain in CB performance (ΔG) when rpc<0.9. For highly correlated traits (rpc=0.9) selective genotyping did not impact (P > 0.05) ΔG. No differences (P > 0.05) were observed in ΔG between top, bottom, or middle when rpc>0.1. Higher correlations between true breeding values (TBV) and EBV were observed using Extreme when rpc<0.9. In general, family sampling method did not impact ΔG or the correlation between TBV and EBV. Overall, the Extreme genotyping strategy produced the greatest genetic gain and the highest correlations between TBV and EBV, suggesting that 2-tailed sampling of CB animals is the most informative when CB performance is the selection goal.
© The Author(s) 2021. 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:  commercial data; selective genotyping; selective phenotyping; swine

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33560334      PMCID: PMC7968076          DOI: 10.1093/jas/skab041

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


  26 in total

1.  Power of selective genotyping in genetic association analyses of quantitative traits.

Authors:  S Van Gestel; J J Houwing-Duistermaat; R Adolfsson; C M van Duijn; C Van Broeckhoven
Journal:  Behav Genet       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.805

2.  Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model.

Authors:  C R Henderson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 3.  Estimating F-statistics.

Authors:  B S Weir; W G Hill
Journal:  Annu Rev Genet       Date:  2002-06-11       Impact factor: 16.830

4.  Effect of selection and selective genotyping for creation of reference on bias and accuracy of genomic prediction.

Authors:  Gopal R Gowane; Sang Hong Lee; Sam Clark; Nasir Moghaddar; Hawlader A Al-Mamun; Julius H J van der Werf
Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 2.380

5.  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

6.  Genotyping strategies for genomic selection in small dairy cattle populations.

Authors:  J A Jiménez-Montero; O González-Recio; R Alenda
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  A crossbred reference population can improve the response to genomic selection for crossbred performance.

Authors:  Hadi Esfandyari; Anders Christian Sørensen; Piter Bijma
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  Effect of genomic selection and genotyping strategy on estimation of variance components in animal models using different relationship matrices.

Authors:  Lei Wang; Luc L Janss; Per Madsen; John Henshall; Chyong-Huoy Huang; Danye Marois; Setegn Alemu; A C Sørensen; Just Jensen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2020-06-11       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  A bivariate genomic model with additive, dominance and inbreeding depression effects for sire line and three-way crossbred pigs.

Authors:  Ole F Christensen; Bjarne Nielsen; Guosheng Su; Tao Xiang; Per Madsen; Tage Ostersen; Ingela Velander; Anders B Strathe
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2019-08-19       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Genomic evaluation of both purebred and crossbred performances.

Authors:  Ole F Christensen; Per Madsen; Bjarne Nielsen; Guosheng Su
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-03-25       Impact factor: 4.297

View more
  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.