0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Genomic predictions under different genetic architectures are impacted by mating designs

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Mating in animal communities must be managed in a way that assures the performance increase in the progenies without increasing the rate of inbreeding. It has currently become possible to identify millions of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), and it is feasible to select animals based on genome-wide marker profiles. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of five mating designs among individuals (random, positive and negative assortative, minimized and maximized inbreeding) on genomic prediction accuracy. The choice of these five particular mating designs provides a thorough analysis of the way genetic diversity, relatedness, inbreeding, and biological conditions influence the accuracy of genomic predictions. Utilizing a stochastic simulation technique, various marker and quantitative trait loci (QTL) densities were taken into account. The heritabilities of a simulated trait were 0.05, 0.30, and 0.60. A validation population that only had genotypic records was taken into consideration, and a reference population that had both genotypic and phenotypic records was considered for every simulation scenario. By measuring the correlation between estimated and true breeding values, the prediction accuracy was calculated. Computing the regression of true genomic breeding value on estimated genomic breeding value allowed for the examination of prediction bias. The scenario with a positive assortative mating design had the highest accuracy of genomic prediction (0.733 ± 0.003 to 0.966 ± 0.001). In a case of negative assortative mating, the genomic evaluation's accuracy was lowest (0.680 ± 0.011 to 0.899 ± 0.003). Applying the positive assortative mating design resulted in the unbiased regression coefficients of true genomic breeding value on estimated genomic breeding value. Based on the current results, it is suggested to implement positive assortative mating in genomic evaluation programs to obtain unbiased genomic predictions with greater accuracy. This study implies that animal breeding programs can improve offspring performance without compromising genetic health by carefully managing mating strategies based on genetic diversity, relatedness, and inbreeding levels. To maximize breeding results and ensure long-term genetic improvement in animal populations, this study highlights the importance of considering different mating designs when evaluating genomic information. When incorporating positive assortative mating or other mating schemes into genomic evaluation programs, it is critical to consider the complex relationship between gene interactions, environmental influences, and genetic drift to ensure the stability and effectiveness of breeding efforts. Further research and comprehensive analyzes are needed to fully understand the impact of these factors and their possible complex interactions on the accuracy of genomic prediction and to develop strategies that optimize breeding outcomes in animal populations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references48

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.

          P VanRaden (2008)
          Efficient methods for processing genomic data were developed to increase reliability of estimated breeding values and to estimate thousands of marker effects simultaneously. Algorithms were derived and computer programs tested with simulated data for 2,967 bulls and 50,000 markers distributed randomly across 30 chromosomes. Estimation of genomic inbreeding coefficients required accurate estimates of allele frequencies in the base population. Linear model predictions of breeding values were computed by 3 equivalent methods: 1) iteration for individual allele effects followed by summation across loci to obtain estimated breeding values, 2) selection index including a genomic relationship matrix, and 3) mixed model equations including the inverse of genomic relationships. A blend of first- and second-order Jacobi iteration using 2 separate relaxation factors converged well for allele frequencies and effects. Reliability of predicted net merit for young bulls was 63% compared with 32% using the traditional relationship matrix. Nonlinear predictions were also computed using iteration on data and nonlinear regression on marker deviations; an additional (about 3%) gain in reliability for young bulls increased average reliability to 66%. Computing times increased linearly with number of genotypes. Estimation of allele frequencies required 2 processor days, and genomic predictions required <1 d per trait, and traits were processed in parallel. Information from genotyping was equivalent to about 20 daughters with phenotypic records. Actual gains may differ because the simulation did not account for linkage disequilibrium in the base population or selection in subsequent generations.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection

            Background Two Bayesian methods, BayesCπ and BayesDπ, were developed for genomic prediction to address the drawback of BayesA and BayesB regarding the impact of prior hyperparameters and treat the prior probability π that a SNP has zero effect as unknown. The methods were compared in terms of inference of the number of QTL and accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs), using simulated scenarios and real data from North American Holstein bulls. Results Estimates of π from BayesCπ, in contrast to BayesDπ, were sensitive to the number of simulated QTL and training data size, and provide information about genetic architecture. Milk yield and fat yield have QTL with larger effects than protein yield and somatic cell score. The drawback of BayesA and BayesB did not impair the accuracy of GEBVs. Accuracies of alternative Bayesian methods were similar. BayesA was a good choice for GEBV with the real data. Computing time was shorter for BayesCπ than for BayesDπ, and longest for our implementation of BayesA. Conclusions Collectively, accounting for computing effort, uncertainty as to the number of QTL (which affects the GEBV accuracy of alternative methods), and fundamental interest in the number of QTL underlying quantitative traits, we believe that BayesCπ has merit for routine applications.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges.

              A new technology called genomic selection is revolutionizing dairy cattle breeding. Genomic selection refers to selection decisions based on genomic breeding values (GEBV). The GEBV are calculated as the sum of the effects of dense genetic markers, or haplotypes of these markers, across the entire genome, thereby potentially capturing all the quantitative trait loci (QTL) that contribute to variation in a trait. The QTL effects, inferred from either haplotypes or individual single nucleotide polymorphism markers, are first estimated in a large reference population with phenotypic information. In subsequent generations, only marker information is required to calculate GEBV. The reliability of GEBV predicted in this way has already been evaluated in experiments in the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and the Netherlands. These experiments used reference populations of between 650 and 4,500 progeny-tested Holstein-Friesian bulls, genotyped for approximately 50,000 genome-wide markers. Reliabilities of GEBV for young bulls without progeny test results in the reference population were between 20 and 67%. The reliability achieved depended on the heritability of the trait evaluated, the number of bulls in the reference population, the statistical method used to estimate the single nucleotide polymorphism effects in the reference population, and the method used to calculate the reliability. A common finding in 3 countries (United States, New Zealand, and Australia) was that a straightforward BLUP method for estimating the marker effects gave reliabilities of GEBV almost as high as more complex methods. The BLUP method is attractive because the only prior information required is the additive genetic variance of the trait. All countries included a polygenic effect (parent average breeding value) in their GEBV calculation. This inclusion is recommended to capture any genetic variance not associated with the markers, and to put some selection pressure on low-frequency QTL that may not be captured by the markers. The reliabilities of GEBV achieved were significantly greater than the reliability of parental average breeding values, the current criteria for selection of bull calves to enter progeny test teams. The increase in reliability is sufficiently high that at least 2 dairy breeding companies are already marketing bull teams for commercial use based on their GEBV only, at 2 yr of age. This strategy should at least double the rate of genetic gain in the dairy industry. Many challenges with genomic selection and its implementation remain, including increasing the accuracy of GEBV, integrating genomic information into national and international genetic evaluations, and managing long-term genetic gain.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Vet Anim Sci
                Vet Anim Sci
                Veterinary and Animal Science
                Elsevier
                2451-943X
                19 June 2024
                September 2024
                19 June 2024
                : 25
                : 100373
                Affiliations
                [0001]Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, 41635-1314, Iran
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author at: Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht, 41635-1314, Iran. nhosseinzadeh@ 123456guilan.ac.ir navid.hosseinzadeh@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                S2451-943X(24)00040-1 100373
                10.1016/j.vas.2024.100373
                11260037
                39036417
                7c8372cc-0a48-45ce-85ce-c70f824bf2e1
                © 2024 The Author(s)

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                assortative mating,genomic breeding value,genomic prediction accuracy,genomic selection,prediction bias

                Comments

                Comment on this article