Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of preselection of genotyped animals on reliability and bias of genomic prediction in dairy cattle

  • Received : 2018.03.01
  • Accepted : 2018.06.22
  • Published : 2019.02.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: Models for genomic selection assume that the reference population is an unselected population. However, in practice, genotyped individuals, such as progeny-tested bulls, are highly selected, and the reference population is created after preselection. In dairy cattle, the intensity of selection is higher in males than in females, suggesting that cows can be added to the reference population with less bias and loss of accuracy. The objective is to develop formulas applied to any genomic prediction studies or practice with preselected animals as reference population. Methods: We developed formulas for calculating the reliability and bias of genomically enhanced breeding values (GEBV) in the reference population where individuals are preselected on estimated breeding values. Based on the formulas presented, deterministic simulation was conducted by varying heritability, preselection percentage, and the reference population size. Results: The number of bulls equal to a cow regarding the reliability of GEBV was expressed through a simple formula for the reference population consisting of preselected animals. The bull population was vastly superior to the cow population regarding the reliability of GEBV for low-heritability traits. However, the superiority of reliability from the bull reference population over the cow population decreased as heritability increased. Bias was greater for bulls than cows. Bias and reduction in reliability of GEBV due to preselection was alleviated by expanding reference population. Conclusion: Cows are easier in expanding reference population size compared with bulls and alleviate bias and reduction in reliability of GEBV of bulls which are highly preselected than cows by expanding the cow reference population.

Keywords

References

  1. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001;157:1819-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/157.4.1819
  2. Mäntysaari E, Z Liu, vanRaden PM. Interbull validation test for genomic evaluations. Interbull bulletin 2010;41:4-5.
  3. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th ed. Harlow, UK: Longman; 1996.
  4. Schaeffer LR. Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle. J Anim Breed Genet 2006;123:218-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2006.00595.x
  5. Van Grevenhof EM, Van Arendonk JAM, Bijma P. Response to genomic selection: The bulmer effect and the potential of genomic selection when the number of phenotypic records is limiting. Genet Sel Evol 2012;44:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-44-26
  6. Daetwyler HD, Villanueva B, Bijma P, et al. Inbreeding in genome-wide selection. J Anim Breed Genet 2007;124:369-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00693.x
  7. Jenko J, Wiggans GR, Cooper TA, et al. Cow genotyping strategies for genomic selection in a small dairy cattle population. J Dairy Sci 2017;100:439-52. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11479
  8. Buch LH, Kargo M, Berg P, et al. The value of cows in reference populations for genomic selection of new functional traits. Animal 2012;6:880-6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731111002205
  9. Ding X, Zhang Z, Li X, et al. Accuracy of genomic prediction for milk production traits in the Chinese Holstein population using a reference population consisting of cows. J Dairy Sci 2013;96:5315-23. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6194
  10. Uemoto Y, Osawa T, Saburi J. Effect of genotyped cows in the reference population on the genomic evaluation of Holstein cattle. Animal 2017;11:382-93. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731116001762
  11. Calus MPL, de Haas Y, Veerkamp RF. Combining cow and bull reference populations to increase accuracy of genomic prediction and genome-wide association studies. J Dairy Sci 2013;96:6703-15. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6013
  12. Pryce JE, Nguyen TTT, Axford M, et al. Symposium review: Building a better cow-the Australian experience and future perspectives. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:3702-13. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13377
  13. Cunningham EP. Multi-stage index selection. Theor Appl Genet 1975;46:55-61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00264755
  14. Van Raden PM, Van Tassell C, Wiggans P, et al. Invited review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:16-24. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1514
  15. Olson KM, van Raden PM, Tooker ME, et al. Differences among methods to validate genomic evaluations for dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2011;94:2613-20. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-3877
  16. Daetwyler HD, Villanueva B, Woolliams JA. Accuracy of predicting the genetic risk of disease using a genome-wide approach. PLoS One 2008;3:e3395. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003395
  17. Hayes BJ, Daetwyler HD, Bowman PJ, et al. Accuracy of genomic selection: comparing theory and results. Proc Assoc Advmt Anim Breed Genet 2009;18:34-37.
  18. Garrick DJ, Taylor JF, Fernando RL. Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses. Genet Sel Evol 2009;41:55. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-41-55
  19. Liu Z, Seefried FR, Reinhardt F, et al. Impacts of both reference population size and inclusion of a residual polygenic effect on the accuracy of genomic prediction. Genet Sel Evol 2011;43:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-43-19
  20. Gonzalez-Recio O, Pryce JE, Haile-Mariam H, et al. Incorporating heifer feed efficiency in the Australian selection index using genomic selection. J Dairy Sci 2014;97:3883-93. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7515
  21. Weigel KA, Hoffman PC, Herring W. Potential gains in lifetime net merit from genomic testing of cows, heifers, and calves on commercial dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 2012;95:2215-25. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4877
  22. Thomasen JR, Sorensen AC, Lund MS, et al. Adding cows to the reference population makes a small dairy population competitive. J Dairy Sci 2014;97:5822-32. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-7906
  23. Pryce JE, Nguyen TTT, Axford M, et al. Symposium review: Building a better cow-The Australian experience and future perspectives. J Dairy Sci 2018;101:3702-13. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13377
  24. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM. The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics 2007;177:2389-97. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.107.081190
  25. Habier D, Tetens J, Seefried FR, et al. The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle. Genet Sel Evol 2010;42:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-42-5
  26. Su G, Ma P, Nielsen US, et al. Sharing reference data and including cows in the reference population improve genomic predictions in Danish Jersey. Animal 2016;10:1067-75. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001792
  27. Goddard ME. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica 2009;136:245-57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-008-9308-0
  28. Solberg TR, Sonesson AK, Woolliams JA, et al. Genomic selection using different marker types and densities. J Anim Sci 2008;86:2447-54. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0010
  29. Muir, WM. Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters. J Anim Breed Genet 2007;124:342-55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00700.x
  30. Su G, Madsen P, Nielsen US, et al. Genomic prediction for Nordic red cattle using one-step and selection index blending. J Dairy Sci 2012;95:909-17. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4804