Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

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

DOI QR Code

Assessment of genomic prediction accuracy using different selection and evaluation approaches in a simulated Korean beef cattle population

  • Nwogwugwu, Chiemela Peter (Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Kim, Yeongkuk (Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Choi, Hyunji (Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Lee, Jun Heon (Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Lee, Seung-Hwan (Division of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University)
  • Received : 2019.04.09
  • Accepted : 2019.06.12
  • Published : 2020.12.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: This study assessed genomic prediction accuracies based on different selection methods, evaluation procedures, training population (TP) sizes, heritability (h2) levels, marker densities and pedigree error (PE) rates in a simulated Korean beef cattle population. Methods: A simulation was performed using two different selection methods, phenotypic and estimated breeding value (EBV), with an h2 of 0.1, 0.3, or 0.5 and marker densities of 10, 50, or 777K. A total of 275 males and 2,475 females were randomly selected from the last generation to simulate ten recent generations. The simulation of the PE dataset was modified using only the EBV method of selection with a marker density of 50K and a heritability of 0.3. The proportions of errors substituted were 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%, respectively. Genetic evaluations were performed using genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) with different weighted values. The accuracies of the predictions were determined. Results: Compared with phenotypic selection, the results revealed that the prediction accuracies obtained using GBLUP and ssGBLUP increased across heritability levels and TP sizes during EBV selection. However, an increase in the marker density did not yield higher accuracy in either method except when the h2 was 0.3 under the EBV selection method. Based on EBV selection with a heritability of 0.1 and a marker density of 10K, GBLUP and ssGBLUP_0.95 prediction accuracy was higher than that obtained by phenotypic selection. The prediction accuracies from ssGBLUP_0.95 outperformed those from the GBLUP method across all scenarios. When errors were introduced into the pedigree dataset, the prediction accuracies were only minimally influenced across all scenarios. Conclusion: Our study suggests that the use of ssGBLUP_0.95, EBV selection, and low marker density could help improve genetic gains in beef cattle.

Keywords

References

  1. Henderson CR. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics1975;31:423-47. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529430
  2. Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AJ, Goddard ME. Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. J Dairy Sci 2009;92:433-43. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1646
  3. Van der Werf J. Principles of estimation of breeding values. In: Genetic evaluation and breeding program design. Armidale, Australia: University of New England; 2015. pp. 1-17.
  4. VanRaden PM, Van Tassell CP, Wiggans GR, 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
  5. Meuwissen T, Hayes B, Goddard M. Genomic selection: a paradigm shift in animal breeding. Anim Front 2016;6:6-14. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2016-0002
  6. Calus MPL. Genomic breeding value prediction: methods and procedures. Animal 2010;4:157-64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731109991352
  7. Gao H, Christensen OF, Madsen P, et al. Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single-step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population. Genet Sel Evol 2012;44:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-44-8
  8. 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
  9. Solberg TR, Sonesson AK, Woolliams JA, Meuwissen THE. Genomic selection using different marker types and densities. J Anim Sci 2008;86:2447-54. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0010
  10. Nwogwugwu CP, Kim Y, Chung YJ, et al. Effect of errors in pedigree on the accuracy of estimated breeding value for carcass traits in Korean Hanwoo cattle. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2020;33:1057-67. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.19.0021
  11. VanRaden PM. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci 2008;91:4414-23. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0980
  12. 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
  13. Legarra A, Aguilar I, Misztal I. A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. J Dairy Sci 2009;92: 4656-63. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2061
  14. Christensen OF, Lund MS. Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genet Sel Evol 2010;42:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-42-2
  15. Piccoli ML, Brito LF, Braccini J, et al. A comprehensive comparison between single- and two-step GBLUP methods in a simulated beef cattle population. Can J Anim Sci 2018;98: 565-75. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjas-2017-0176
  16. Song CW. The Korean Hanwoo beef cattle. Anim Genet Resour 1994;14:61-71. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1014233900000341
  17. Onogi A, Ogino A, Komatsu T, et al. Genomic prediction in Japanese Black cattle: application of a single-step approach to beef cattle. J Anim Sci 2014;92:1931-8. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-7168
  18. Legarra A, Christensen OF, Aguilar I, Misztal I. Single step, a general approach for genomic selection. Livest Sci 2014;166: 54-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.04.029
  19. Rogers AR, Wooding S, Huff CD, Batzer MA, Jorde LB. Ancestral alleles and population origins: inferences depend on mutation rate. Mol Biol Evol 2007;24:990-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msm018
  20. Kizilkaya K, Fernando RL, Garrick DJ. Genomic prediction of simulated multibreed and purebred performance using observed fifty thousand single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes. J Anim Sci 2013;88:544-51. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2064
  21. Brito FV, Neto JB, Sargolzaei M, Cobuci JA, Schenkel FS. Accuracy of genomic selection in simulated populations mimicking the extent of linkage disequilibrium in beef cattle. BMC Genet 2011;12:80. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-12-80
  22. Sargolzaei M, Schenkel FS. QMSim: A large-scale genome simulator for livestock. Bioinformatics 2009;25:680-1. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp045
  23. Oliehoek PA, Bijma P. Effects of pedigree errors on the efficiency of conservation decisions. Genet Select Evol 2009;41:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-41-9
  24. Legarra A, Ricard A, Filangi O. GS3: genomic selection, gibbs sampling, gauss seidel ($and BayesC{\pi}$). Paris, France: INRA; 2014.
  25. Christensen OF, Lund MS. Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genet Sel Evol 2010;42:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-42-2
  26. Abdalla EEA, Schenkel FS, Emamgholi Begli H, et al. Single-step methodology for genomic evaluation in Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). Front Genet 2019;10:1248. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.01248
  27. Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Lee DH, et al. BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90). In: Proceeding of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production; 2002 Aug 19-23; Montpellier, France.
  28. Misztal I, Wiggans GR. Approximation of prediction error variance in large-scale animal models. J Dairy Sci 1988;71: 27-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0302(88)79976-2
  29. Gowane GR, Lee SH, Clark S, Moghaddar N, Al-Mamun HA, van der Werf JHJ. Effect of selection on bias and accuracy in genomic prediction of breeding values. bioRxiv 2018;298042. https://doi.org/10.1101/298042
  30. Kolbehdari D, Schaeffer LR, Robinson JAB. Estimation of genome-wide haplotype effects in half-sib designs. J Anim Breed Genet 2007;124:356-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00698.x
  31. Zhu B, Zhang J, Niu H, et al. Effects of marker density and minor allele frequency on genomic prediction for growth traits in Chinese Simmental beef cattle. J Integr Agric 2017; 16:911-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61474-0
  32. 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
  33. Amari B. Understanding estimated breeding values [Internet]. Pinegowrie, Craighall, South Africa: Caxton House, 368 Jan Smuts Avenue; 2016 [2016 May 30]. Available from: https:// www.farmersweekly.co.za/farm-basics/how-to-livestock/understanding-estimated-breeding-values/2016
  34. Vitezica ZG, Aguilar I, Legarra A. One-step vs. multi-step methods for genomic prediction in presence of selection. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Volume genetic improvement programmes: selection using molecular information - lecture sessions; 2010. No. 0131.
  35. Lee J, Cheng H, Garrick D, et al. Comparison of alternative approaches to single-trait genomic prediction using genotyped and non-genotyped Hanwoo beef cattle. Genet Sel Evol 2017;49:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-016-0279-9
  36. Goddard M, Hayes BJ. Genomic selection. J Anim Breed Genet 2007;124:323-30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00702.x
  37. Erbe M, Hayes BJ, Matukumalli LK et al. Improving accuracy of genomic predictions within and between dairy cattle breeds with imputed high-density single nucleotide polymorphism panels. J Dairy Sci 2012;95:4114-29. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-5019
  38. Wang Q, Yu Y, Yuan J, et al. Effects of marker density and population structure on the genomic prediction accuracy for growth trait in Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei. BMC Genet 2017;18:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-017-0507-5
  39. Israel C, Weller JI. Effect of misidentification on genetic gain and estimation of breeding value in dairy cattle populations. J Dairy Sci 2000;83:181-7. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74869-7