Literature DB >> 33664785

On the estimation of inbreeding depression using different measures of inbreeding from molecular markers.

Armando Caballero1, Beatriz Villanueva2, Tom Druet3.   

Abstract

The inbreeding coefficient (F) of individuals can be estimated from molecular marker data, such as SNPs, using measures of homozygosity of individual markers or runs of homozygosity (ROH) across the genome. These different measures of F can then be used to estimate the rate of inbreeding depression (ID) for quantitative traits. Some recent simulation studies have investigated the accuracy of this estimation with contradictory results. Whereas some studies suggest that estimates of inbreeding from ROH account more accurately for ID, others suggest that inbreeding measures from SNP-by-SNP homozygosity giving a large weight to rare alleles are more accurate. Here, we try to give more light on this issue by carrying out a set of computer simulations considering a range of population genetic parameters and population sizes. Our results show that the previous studies are indeed not contradictory. In populations with low effective size, where relationships are more tight and selection is relatively less intense, F measures based on ROH provide very accurate estimates of ID whereas SNP-by-SNP-based F measures with high weight to rare alleles can show substantial upwardly biased estimates of ID. However, in populations of large effective size, with more intense selection and trait allele frequencies expected to be low if they are deleterious for fitness because of purifying selection, average estimates of ID from SNP-by-SNP-based F values become unbiased or slightly downwardly biased and those from ROH-based F values become slightly downwardly biased. The noise attached to all these estimates, nevertheless, can be very high in large-sized populations. We also investigate the relationship between the different F measures and the homozygous mutation load, which has been suggested as a proxy of inbreeding depression.
© 2020 The Authors. Evolutionary Applications published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  coancestry; deleterious recessive mutations; genetic drift; identity by descent; inbreeding load

Year:  2020        PMID: 33664785      PMCID: PMC7896712          DOI: 10.1111/eva.13126

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evol Appl        ISSN: 1752-4571            Impact factor:   5.183


  45 in total

1.  Dynamics of inbreeding depression due to deleterious mutations in small populations: mutation parameters and inbreeding rate.

Authors:  J Wang; W G Hill; D Charlesworth; B Charlesworth
Journal:  Genet Res       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 1.588

2.  Understanding and predicting the fitness decline of shrunk populations: inbreeding, purging, mutation, and standard selection.

Authors:  Aurora García-Dorado
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-01-31       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Pedigrees or markers: Which are better in estimating relatedness and inbreeding coefficient?

Authors:  Jinliang Wang
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 1.570

4.  The Nature of Genetic Variation for Complex Traits Revealed by GWAS and Regional Heritability Mapping Analyses.

Authors:  Armando Caballero; Albert Tenesa; Peter D Keightley
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 5.  Inbreeding depression in livestock species: review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  G Leroy
Journal:  Anim Genet       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  Measuring individual inbreeding in the age of genomics: marker-based measures are better than pedigrees.

Authors:  M Kardos; G Luikart; F W Allendorf
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-03-18       Impact factor: 3.821

7.  Inbreeding depression across the lifespan in a wild mammal population.

Authors:  Jisca Huisman; Loeske E B Kruuk; Philip A Ellis; Tim Clutton-Brock; Josephine M Pemberton
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Evaluation of inbreeding depression in Holstein cattle using whole-genome SNP markers and alternative measures of genomic inbreeding.

Authors:  D W Bjelland; K A Weigel; N Vukasinovic; J D Nkrumah
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 4.034

Review 9.  Genomics advances the study of inbreeding depression in the wild.

Authors:  Marty Kardos; Helen R Taylor; Hans Ellegren; Gordon Luikart; Fred W Allendorf
Journal:  Evol Appl       Date:  2016-10-23       Impact factor: 5.183

10.  How to estimate kinship.

Authors:  Jérôme Goudet; Tomas Kay; Bruce S Weir
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2018-09-07       Impact factor: 6.185

View more
  4 in total

1.  First-degree relationships and genotyping errors deciphered by a high-density SNP array in a Duroc × Iberian pig cross.

Authors:  L Gomez-Raya; E Gómez Izquierdo; E de Mercado de la Peña; F Garcia-Ruiz; W M Rauw
Journal:  BMC Genom Data       Date:  2022-02-17

2.  Managing genetic diversity in breeding programs of small populations: the case of French local chicken breeds.

Authors:  Gwendal Restoux; Xavier Rognon; Agathe Vieaud; Daniel Guemene; Florence Petitjean; Romuald Rouger; Sophie Brard-Fudulea; Sophie Lubac-Paye; Geoffrey Chiron; Michèle Tixier-Boichard
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 5.100

3.  Suitability of Pedigree Information and Genomic Methods for Analyzing Inbreeding of Polish Cold-Blooded Horses Covered by Conservation Programs.

Authors:  Grażyna Polak; Artur Gurgul; Igor Jasielczuk; Tomasz Szmatoła; Jędrzej Krupiński; Monika Bugno-Poniewierska
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 4.096

4.  The value of genomic relationship matrices to estimate levels of inbreeding.

Authors:  Beatriz Villanueva; Almudena Fernández; María Saura; Armando Caballero; Jesús Fernández; Elisabeth Morales-González; Miguel A Toro; Ricardo Pong-Wong
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 5.100

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.