The comparison of the accuracy of genomic predictions for low heritability traits under single-step and multi-step GBLUP methods applying simulated data

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

University of Jiroft

Abstract

Reproductive traits are considered to be as functional traits in the dairy breeding industry due to their great impact on the profitability. Due to low heritability of reproductive traits, genetic progress in these traits is slow. Therefore, genomic selection may be considered as an effective method for increasing genetic improvement for these traits. The accuracy of genomic selection depends on the several factors such as heritability of traits, statistical method for calculating SNP marker effects in reference population and number of individuals in the reference population. The present study was aimed to compare the accuracy and bias of genomic predictions for low heritability traits using SS-GBLUP and MS-GBLUP methods under different strategies applying simulated data. For this purpose, a genome containing 1000, 2000 and 5000 single-nucleotide polymorphism with two alleles (SNP) with length of one cM was simulated. The numbers of individuals in reference population were considered to be 1000, 1500 and 2000, respectively. The mean accuracies were estimated as 0.244 and 0.399 under above methods, respectively. Also, with an increase in the numbers of individual in the reference population, from 1000 to 2000 the mean accuracy of genomic prediction under above methods were increased from 0.209 to 0.294 and from 0.348 to 0.460, respectively. The averages for regression coefficient under above methods were estimated to be 1.2 and 0.94, respectively. Our results indicated that SS-GBLUP method along with an increase in the numbers of individuals' reference population, is suggested to increase the accuracy of selection for low-heritability reproduction traits.

Keywords

References

محمدی، ی.، ستایی مختاری، م. و رزم کبیر، م. (1396). مطالعه روش‌های پیش‌بینی ارزش اصلاحی ژنومی -  مقایسه روش‌های BLUP سنتی،      G- BLUP و روش تک‌مرحله‌ای SS- BLUP. فصلنامه ژنتیک نوین. دوره 12، شماره2. ص ص. 173-167.
Aguilar, I., Misztal, I., Legarra, A. and Tsuruta, S. (2010). Efficient computation of the genomic relationship matrix and other matrices used in single-step evaluation. Journal Animal Breeding and Genetics. 128:422–428.
Aliloo, H., Mrode, R., Okeyo, A.M., Ni, G., Goddard, M.E. and Gibson, J.P. (2018). The feasibility of using low-density marker panels for genotype imputation and genomic prediction of crossbred dairy cattle of East Africa. Journal of Dairy Science. 10: 9108-9127.
Azizian, S., Shadparvar A.A., Ghavi Hossein- Zadeh, N., and Shekalgorabi, S. (2016). Effect of increasing accuracy of genomic evaluations on economic efficiency of dairy cattle breeding programmes. Italian Journal of Animal  Science. 15: 379-385.
 Chang, L.Y.,  Toghiani, S.,  Ling, A.,  Aggrey, S.E. and  Rekaya, R. (2018).  High density marker panels, SNPs prioritizing and accuracy of genomic selection. BMC Genetics. 19: 4.
Christensen, O.F. and Lund, M.S. (2010). Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genetic Selection Evolution. 42:2.
De los Campos, G., Hickey, J.M., Pong-Wong, R., Daetwyler, H.D. and Calus M.P.L. (2013). Whole-genome regression and prediction methods applied to plant and animal breeding. Genetics. 193: 327–345.
Gao, H., Christensen, O.F., Madsen, P., Nielsen, U.S., Zhang, Y., Lund, M.S. and Su, G. (2012). Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single-step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population. Genetic Selection Evolution. 44:8.
Goddard, M.E. (2009). Genomic selection: Prediction of accuracy and maximization of long term response. Genetica, 136:245–257.
Goddard, M.E. and Hayes, B.J. (2009). Mapping gene for complex traits' in  domestic animal and their use in breeding programmes. Nature Reviews Genetic. 10:381–391.
Guarini, A.R., Lourenco, D.A.L., Brito, L.F., Sargolzaei, M., Baes, C., Miglior, F., Misztal, I. and Schenkel, F.S. (2018). Comparison of genomic predictions for lowly heritable traits using multi-step and single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in Holstein cattle. Journal of  Dairy Science. 101:1–11.
Hayes, B., Bowman, P., Chamberlain, A and Goddard, M. (2009). Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges. Journal of Dairy  Science. 92:433–443.
Hoze, C., Fritz, S. Phocas, F. Boichard, D. Ducrocq, V. and Croiseau, P. (2014). Efficiency of multi-breed genomic selection for dairy cattle breeds with different sizes of reference population. Journal of Dairy  Science. 97:3918–3929.
Ismael, A.,Lovendhal, P., Fogh, A., Lund, M.S., and Su, G. (2017). Improving genetic evaluation using a multitrait single-step genomic model for ability to resume cycling after calving, measured by activity tags in Holstein cows. Journal of  Dairy Science, 10: 8188-8196.
Koivula, M., Strandén, I., Su, G., and Mäntysaari, E.A. (2012). Different methods to calculate genomic predictions—Comparisons of BLUP at the single nucleotide polymorphism level, BLUP at the individual level (G-BLUP), and the one-step approach (H-BLUP). Journal of Dairy  Science. 95:4065–4073.
Legarra, A., Christensen, O.F., Aguilar, I. and Misztal, I. (2014). Single Step, a general approach for genomic selection. Livestock Science. 166: 54–65.
Liu, Z., Seefried, F. R., Reinhardt, F., Rensing, S., Thaller, G., and Reents, R. (2011). Impacts of both reference population size and inclusion of a residual polygenic effect on the accuracy of genomic prediction. Genetic Selection Evolution. 43:19.
Ma, P., Lund, M. S., Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., and Su, G. (2015). Single-step genomic model improved reliability and reduced the bias of genomic predictions in Danish Jersey. Journal of Dairy  Science. 98:9026–9034.
Misztal, I., Legarra, A. and Aguilar, I. (2009). Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information. Journal of Dairy  Science. 92:4648–4655.
Misztal, I., Tsuruta, S., Strabel,T., Auvray, B., Druet T., and Lee, D. (2002). BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90). Communication No. 28–07 in Proc. 7th World Congr. Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Montpellier, France.
Meuwissen, T.H., Hayes, B.J., and Goddard, M.E. (2001). Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics. 157: 1819–1829.
Momen, M., Mehrgardi, A.A., Sheikhy, A., Esmailizadeh, A.K., and Assadi Fozzi, M. (2016).
Predictive Ability of Statistical Genomic Prediction Methods When Underlying Genetic Architecture of Trait Is Purely Additive. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science. 6: 815-822.
Neves, H.H.R., Carvalheiro, R., O’Brien, A. M., Utsunomiya, Y.T., do Carmo, A.S., Schenkel, F.S., Sölkner, J., McEwan, J.C., Van Tassell, C.P., Cole, J.B.,  and da Silva, M.V. Queiroz, S. A. (2014). Accuracy of genomic predictions in Bos indicus (Nellore) cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution. 46:17.
Piccoli, M.L., Brito, L.F., Braccini, J., Brito, F.V., Cardoso, F.F., Cobuci, J.A., Sargolzaei, M. and Schenkel, F.S. (2018). A comprehensive comparison between single- and two-step GBLUP methods in a simulated beef cattle population. Canadian Journal of Animal Science. 98: 565–575.
Sargolzaei, M.,  and Schenkel, F.S. (2009).QMSim: a large-scale genome simulator for livestock. Bioinformatics. 25: 680–1.
Song, H., Zhang, J., Jiang, Y., Gao, H., Tang, S., Mi, S., Yu, F., Meng, Q., Xiao, W. and Ding, X. (2017). Genomic prediction  for growth and reproduction traits in pig using an admixed reference population. Journal of Animal Science. 95: 3415-3424.
Sullivan, P. G. (2009). Options for combining direct genomic and progeny test results. Report to the Genetic Evaluation Board of CDN. Canadian Dairy Network (CDN), Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Veerkamp, R.F., and Beerda, B. (2007). Genetics and genomics to improve fertility in high producing dairy cows. Therlogenology. 68: 266- 273.
Wiggans, G.R., VanRaden, P.M., and Cooper,T.A. (2011). The genomic evaluation system in the United States: Past, present, future. Journal of Dairy Science. 94:3202–3211.
Animal Sciences Journal
Volume 32, Issue 125
March 2020
Pages 155-166

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics