Developments in quantitative genetics methodology as applied to national genetic improvement programs for swine

For a long time,purebred pigs were evalua-ted in a nucleus for several growth,meat qualityand reproduction traits including growth,backfatand number of piglets alive[1].The evaluationwas using BLUP with all traits treated as linearand also assuming a normal distribution.Ani-mals down the pyramid were not evaluated;itwas assumed that most if not all of the gains ofselection at the nucleus level transferred to thecommercial level.The selection based on the e-valuations seemed to be successful …     

Detecting effective starting point of genomic selection by divergent trends from best linear unbiased prediction and single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction in pigs,beef cattle,and broilers

Genomic selection has been adopted nationally and internationally in different livestock and plant species. However, understanding whether genomic selection has been effective or not is an essential question for both industry and academia. Once genomic evaluation started being used, estimation of breeding values with pedigree best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) became biased because this method does not consider selection using genomic information. Hence, the effective starting point of genomic selection can be detected in two possible ways including the divergence of genetic trends and Realized Mendelian sampling (RMS) trends obtained with BLUP and single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP). This study aimed to find the start date of genomic selection for a set of economically important traits in three livestock species by comparing trends obtained using BLUP and ssGBLUP. Three datasets were used for this purpose: 1) a pig dataset with 117k genotypes and 1.3M animals in pedigree, 2) an Angus cattle dataset consisted of ~842k genotypes and 11.5M animals in pedigree, and 3) a purebred broiler chicken dataset included ~154k genotypes and 1.3M birds in pedigree were used. The genetic trends for pigs diverged for the genotyped animals born in 2014 for average daily gain (ADG) and backfat (BF). In beef cattle, the trends started diverging in 2009 for weaning weight (WW) and in 2016 for postweaning gain (PWG), with little divergence for birth weight (BTW). In broiler chickens, the genetic trends estimated by ssGBLUP and BLUP diverged at breeding cycle 6 for two out of the three production traits. The RMS trends for the genotyped pigs diverged for animals born in 2014, more for ADG than for BF. In beef cattle, the RMS trends started diverging in 2009 for WW and in 2016 for PWG, with a trivial trend for BTW. In broiler chickens, the RMS trends from ssGBLUP and BLUP diverged strongly for two production traits at breeding cycle 6, with a slight divergence for another trait. Divergence of the genetic trends from ssGBLUP and BLUP indicates the onset of the genomic selection. The presence of trends for RMS indicates selective genotyping, with or without the genomic selection. The onset of genomic selection and genotyping strategies agrees with industry practices across the three species. In summary, the effective start of genomic selection can be detected by the divergence between genetic and RMS trends from BLUP and ssGBLUP.     

Comparison of models for missing pedigree in single-step genomic prediction

Pedigree information is often missing for some animals in a breeding program. Unknown-parent groups (UPGs) are assigned to the missing parents to avoid biased genetic evaluations. Although the use of UPGs is well established for the pedigree model, it is unclear how UPGs are integrated into the inverse of the unified relationship matrix (H-inverse) required for single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction. A generalization of the UPG model is the metafounder (MF) model. The objectives of this study were to derive 3 H-inverses and to compare genetic trends among models with UPG and MF H-inverses using a simulated purebred population. All inverses were derived using the joint density function of the random breeding values and genetic groups. The breeding values of genotyped animals (u₂) were assumed to be adjusted for UPG effects (g) using matrix Q₂ as u2∗=u2+Q2g before incorporating genomic information. The Quaas–Pollak-transformed (QP) H-inverse was derived using a joint density function of u2∗ and g updated with genomic information and assuming nonzero cov(u2∗,g′). The modified QP (altered) H-inverse also assumes that the genomic information updates u2∗ and g, but cov(u2∗,g′)=0. The UPG-encapsulated (EUPG) H-inverse assumed genomic information updates the distribution of u2∗. The EUPG H-inverse had the same structure as the MF H-inverse. Fifty percent of the genotyped females in the simulation had a missing dam, and missing parents were replaced with UPGs by generation. The simulation study indicated that u2∗ and g in models using the QP and altered H-inverses may be inseparable leading to potential biases in genetic trends. Models using the EUPG and MF H-inverses showed no genetic trend biases. These 2 H-inverses yielded the same genomic EBV (GEBV). The predictive ability and inflation of GEBVs from young genotyped animals were nearly identical among models using the QP, altered, EUPG, and MF H-inverses. Although the choice of H-inverse in real applications with enough data may not result in biased genetic trends, the EUPG and MF H-inverses are to be preferred because of theoretical justification and possibility to reduce biases.     

Impact of including the cause of missing records on genetic evaluations for growth in commercial pigs

It is of interest to evaluate crossbred pigs for hot carcass weight (HCW) and birth weight (BW); however, obtaining a HCW record is dependent on livability (LIV) and retained tag (RT). The purpose of this study is to analyze how HCW evaluations are affected when herd removal and missing identification are included in the model and examine if accounting for the reasons for missing traits improves the accuracy of predicting breeding values. Pedigree information was available for 1,965,077 purebred and crossbred animals. Records for 503,716 commercial three-way crossbred terminal animals from 2014 to 2019 were provided by Smithfield Premium Genetics. Two pedigree-based models were compared; model 1 (M1) was a threshold-linear model with all four traits (BW, HCW, RT, and LIV), and model 2 (M2) was a linear model including only BW and HCW. The fixed effects used in the model were contemporary group, sex, age at harvest (for HCW only), and dam parity. The random effects included direct additive genetic and random litter effects. Accuracy, dispersion, bias, and Pearson correlations were estimated using the linear regression method. The heritabilities were 0.11, 0.07, 0.02, and 0.04 for BW, HCW, RT, and LIV, respectively, with standard errors less than 0.01. No difference was observed in heritabilities or accuracies for BW and HCW between M1 and M2. Accuracies were 0.33, 0.37, 0.19, and 0.23 for BW, HCW, RT, and LIV, respectively. The genetic correlation between BW and RT was 0.34 ± 0.03, and between BW and LIV was 0.56 ± 0.03. Similarly, the genetic correlation between HCW and RT was 0.26 ± 0.04, and between HCW and LIV was 0.09 ± 0.05, respectively. The positive and moderate genetic correlations between BW and other traits imply a heavier BW resulted in a higher probability of surviving to harvest. Genetic correlations between HCW and other traits were lower due to the large quantity of missing records. Despite the heritable and correlated aspects of RT and LIV, results imply no major differences between M1 and M2; hence, it is unnecessary to include these traits in classical models for BW and HCW.     

Core-dependent changes in genomic predictions using the Algorithm for Proven and Young in single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction

Single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction with the Algorithm for Proven and Young (APY) is a popular method for large-scale genomic evaluations. With the APY algorithm, animals are designated as core or noncore, and the computing resources to create the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix (GRM) are reduced by inverting only a portion of that matrix for core animals. However, using different core sets of the same size causes fluctuations in genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) up to one additive standard deviation without affecting prediction accuracy. About 2% of the variation in the GRM is noise. In the recursion formula for APY, the error term modeling the noise is different for every set of core animals, creating changes in breeding values. While average changes are small, and correlations between breeding values estimated with different core animals are close to 1.0, based on the normal distribution theory, outliers can be several times bigger than the average. Tests included commercial datasets from beef and dairy cattle and from pigs. Beyond a certain number of core animals, the prediction accuracy did not improve, but fluctuations decreased with more animals. Fluctuations were much smaller than the possible changes based on prediction error variance. GEBVs change over time even for animals with no new data as genomic relationships ties all the genotyped animals, causing reranking of top animals. In contrast, changes in nongenomic models without new data are small. Also, GEBV can change due to details in the model, such as redefinition of contemporary groups or unknown parent groups. In particular, increasing the fraction of blending of the GRM with a pedigree relationship matrix from 5% to 20% caused changes in GEBV up to 0.45 SD, with a correlation of GEBV > 0.99. Fluctuations in genomic predictions are part of genomic evaluation models and are also present without the APY algorithm when genomic evaluations are computed with updated data. The best approach to reduce the impact of fluctuations in genomic evaluations is to make selection decisions not on individual animals with limited individual accuracy but on groups of animals with high average accuracy.