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.     

Genome-wide marker-assisted selection combining all pedigree phenotypic information with genotypic data in one step: An example using broiler chickens

Data of broiler chickens for 2 pure lines across 3 generations were used for genomic evaluation. A complete population (full data set; FDS) consisted of 183,784 and 164,246 broilers for the 2 lines. The genotyped subsets (SUB) consisted of 3,284 and 3,098 broilers with 57,636 SNP. Genotyped animals were preselected based on more than 20 traits with different index applied to each line. Three traits were analyzed: BW at 6 wk (BW6), ultrasound measurement of breast meat (BM), and leg score (LS) coded 1 = no and 2 = yes for leg defect. Some phenotypes were missing for BM. The training population consisted of the first 2 generations including all animals in FDS or only genotyped animals in SUB. The validation data set contained only genotyped animals in the third generation. Genetic evaluations were performed using 3 approaches: 1) phenotypic BLUP, 2) extending BLUP methodologies to utilize pedigree and genomic information in a single step (ssGBLUP), and 3) Bayes A. Whereas BLUP and ssGBLUP utilized all phenotypic data, Bayes A could use only those of the genotyped subset. Heritabilities were 0.17 to 0.20 for BW6, 0.30 to 0.35 for BM, and 0.09 to 0.11 for LS. The average accuracies of the validation population with BLUP for BW6, BM, and LS were 0.46, 0.30, and <0 with SUB and 0.51, 0.34, and 0.28 with FDS. With ssGBLUP, those accuracies were 0.60, 0.34, and 0.06 with SUB and 0.61, 0.40, and 0.37 with FDS, respectively. With Bayes A, the accuracies were 0.60, 0.36, and 0.09 with SUB. With SUB, Bayes A and ssGBLUP had similar accuracies. For traits of high heritability, the accuracy of Bayes A/SUB and ssGBLUP/FDS were similar, and up to 50% better than BLUP/FDS. However, with low heritability, ssGBLUP/FDS was 4 to 6 times more accurate than Bayes A/SUB and 50% better than BLUP/FDS. An optimal genomic evaluation would be multi-trait and involve all traits and records on which selection is based.     

Use of genomic recursions and algorithm for proven and young animals for single‐step genomic BLUP analyses – a simulation study

The purpose of this study was to examine accuracy of genomic selection via single‐step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) when the direct inverse of the genomic relationship matrix ( G ) is replaced by an approximation of G ^?1 based on recursions for young genotyped animals conditioned on a subset of proven animals, termed algorithm for proven and young animals (APY). With the efficient implementation, this algorithm has a cubic cost with proven animals and linear with young animals. Ten duplicate data sets mimicking a dairy cattle population were simulated. In a first scenario, genomic information for 20k genotyped bulls, divided in 7k proven and 13k young bulls, was generated for each replicate. In a second scenario, 5k genotyped cows with phenotypes were included in the analysis as young animals. Accuracies (average for the 10 replicates) in regular EBV were 0.72 and 0.34 for proven and young animals, respectively. When genomic information was included, they increased to 0.75 and 0.50. No differences between genomic EBV (GEBV) obtained with the regular G ^?1 and the approximated G ^?1 via the recursive method were observed. In the second scenario, accuracies in GEBV (0.76, 0.51 and 0.59 for proven bulls, young males and young females, respectively) were also higher than those in EBV (0.72, 0.35 and 0.49). Again, no differences between GEBV with regular G ^?1 and with recursions were observed. With the recursive algorithm, the number of iterations to achieve convergence was reduced from 227 to 206 in the first scenario and from 232 to 209 in the second scenario. Cows can be treated as young animals in APY without reducing the accuracy. The proposed algorithm can be implemented to reduce computing costs and to overcome current limitations on the number of genotyped animals in the ssGBLUP method.     

Reducing bias in the dairy cattle single‐step genomic evaluation by ignoring bulls without progeny

The number of genotyped animals has increased rapidly creating computational challenges for genomic evaluation. In animal model BLUP, candidate animals without progeny and phenotype do not contribute information to the evaluation and can be discarded. In theory, genotyped candidate animal without progeny can bring information into single‐step BLUP (ssGBLUP) and affect the estimation of other breeding values. We studied the effect of including or excluding genomic information of culled bull calves on genomic breeding values (GEBV) from ssGBLUP. In particular, GEBVs of genotyped bulls with daughters and GEBVs of young bulls selected into AI to be progeny tested (test bulls) were studied. The ssGBLUP evaluation was computed using Nordic test day (TD) model and TD data for the Nordic Red Dairy Cattle. The results indicate that genomic information of culled bull calves does not affect the GEBVs of progeny tested reference animals, but if genotypes of the culled bulls are used in the TD ssGBLUP, the genetic trend in the test bulls is considerably higher compared to the situation when genomic information of the culled bull calves is excluded. It seems that by discarding genomic information of culled bull calves without progeny, upward bias of GEBVs of test bulls is reduced.     

Accuracy of genomic breeding values for residual feed intake in crossbred beef cattle

The benefit of using genomic breeding values (GEBV) in predicting ADG, DMI, and residual feed intake for an admixed population was investigated. Phenotypic data consisting of individual daily feed intake measurements for 721 beef cattle steers tested over 5 yr was available for analysis. The animals used were an admixed population of spring-born steers, progeny of a cross between 3 sire breeds and a composite dam line. Training and validation data sets were defined by randomly splitting the data into training and testing data sets based on sire family so that there was no overlap of sires in the 2 sets. The random split was replicated to obtain 5 separate data sets. Two methods (BayesB and random regression BLUP) were used to estimate marker effects and to define marker panels and ultimately the GEBV. The accuracy of prediction (the correlation between the phenotypes and GEBV) was compared between SNP panels. Accuracy for all traits was low, ranging from 0.223 to 0.479 for marker panels with 200 SNP, and 0.114 to 0.246 for marker panels with 37,959 SNP, depending on the genomic selection method used. This was less than accuracies observed for polygenic EBV accuracies, which ranged from 0.504 to 0.602. The results obtained from this study demonstrate that the utility of genetic markers for genomic prediction of residual feed intake in beef cattle may be suboptimal. Differences in accuracy were observed between sire breeds when the random regression BLUP method was used, which may imply that the correlations obtained by this method were confounded by the ability of the selected SNP to trace breed differences. This may also suggest that prediction equations derived from such an admixed population may be useful only in populations of similar composition. Given the sample size used in this study, there is a need for increased feed intake testing if substantially greater accuracies are to be achieved.     

Estimation of total genetic effects for survival time in crossbred laying hens showing cannibalism,using pedigree or genomic information

Mortality of laying hens due to cannibalism is a major problem in the egg‐laying industry. Survival depends on two genetic effects: the direct genetic effect of the individual itself (DGE) and the indirect genetic effects of its group mates (IGE). For hens housed in sire‐family groups, DGE and IGE cannot be estimated using pedigree information, but the combined effect of DGE and IGE is estimated in the total breeding value (TBV). Genomic information provides information on actual genetic relationships between individuals and might be a tool to improve TBV accuracy. We investigated whether genomic information of the sire increased TBV accuracy compared with pedigree information, and we estimated genetic parameters for survival time. A sire model with pedigree information (BLUP) and a sire model with genomic information (ssGBLUP) were used. We used survival time records of 7290 crossbred offspring with intact beaks from four crosses. Cross‐validation was used to compare the models. Using ssGBLUP did not improve TBV accuracy compared with BLUP which is probably due to the limited number of sires available per cross (~50). Genetic parameter estimates were similar for BLUP and ssGBLUP. For both BLUP and ssGBLUP, total heritable variance (T²), expressed as a proportion of phenotypic variance, ranged from 0.03 ± 0.04 to 0.25 ± 0.09. Further research is needed on breeding value estimation for socially affected traits measured on individuals kept in single‐family groups.     

Validation of single‐step GBLUP genomic predictions from threshold models using the linear regression method: An application in chicken mortality

The objective of this study was to determine whether the linear regression (LR) method could be used to validate genomic threshold models. Statistics for the LR method were computed from estimated breeding values (EBVs) using the whole and truncated data sets with variances from the reference and validation populations. The method was tested using simulated and real chicken data sets. The simulated data set included 10 generations of 4,500 birds each; genotypes were available for the last three generations. Each animal was assigned a continuous trait, which was converted to a binary score assuming an incidence of failure of 7%. The real data set included the survival status of 186,596 broilers (mortality rate equal to 7.2%) and genotypes of 18,047 birds. Both data sets were analysed using best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) or single‐step GBLUP (ssGBLUP). The whole data set included all phenotypes available, whereas in the partial data set, phenotypes of the most recent generation were removed. In the simulated data set, the accuracies based on the LR formulas were 0.45 for BLUP and 0.76 for ssGBLUP, whereas the correlations between true breeding values and EBVs (i.e. true accuracies) were 0.37 and 0.65, respectively. The gain in accuracy by adding genomic information was overestimated by 0.09 when using the LR method compared to the true increase in accuracy. However, when the estimated ratio between the additive variance computed based on pedigree only and on pedigree and genomic information was considered, the difference between true and estimated gain was <0.02. Accuracies of BLUP and ssGBLUP with the real data set were 0.41 and 0.47, respectively. This small improvement in accuracy when using ssGBLUP with the real data set was due to population structure and lower heritability. The LR method is a useful tool for estimating improvements in accuracy of EBVs due to the inclusion of genomic information when traditional validation methods as k‐fold validation and predictive ability are not applicable.     

Single step genomic evaluation for female fertility in Nordic Red dairy cattle

Joint Nordic (Denmark, Finland, Sweden) genetic evaluation of female fertility is currently based on the multiple trait multilactation animal model (BLUP). Here, single step genomic model (ssGBLUP) was applied for the Nordic Red dairy cattle fertility evaluation. The 11 traits comprised of nonreturn rate and days from first to last insemination in heifers and first three parities, and days from calving to first insemination in the first three parities. Traits had low heritabilities (0.015–0.04), but moderately high genetic correlations between the parities (0.60–0.88). Phenotypic data included 4,226,715 animals with records and pedigree 5,445,392 animals. Unknown parents were assigned into 332 phantom parent groups (PPG). In mixed model equations animals were associated with PPG effects through the pedigree or both the pedigree and genomic information. Genotype information of 46,914 SNPs was available for 33,969 animals in the pedigree. When PPG used pedigree information only, BLUP converged after 2,420 iterations whereas the ssGBLUP evaluation needed over ten thousand iterations. When the PPG effects were solved accounting both the pedigree and the genomic information, the ssGBLUP model converged after 2,406 iterations. Also, with the latter model breeding values by ssGBLUP and BLUP became more consistent and genetic trends followed each other well. Models were validated using forward prediction of the young bulls. Reliabilities and variance inflation of predicted genomic breeding values (values for parent averages in brackets) for the 11 traits ranged 0.22–0.31 (0.10–0.27) and 0.81–0.95 (0.83–1.06), respectively. The ssGBLUP model gave always higher validation reliabilities than BLUP, but largest increases were for the cow fertility traits.     

Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters

Accuracy of prediction of estimated breeding values based on genome-wide markers (GEBV) and selection based on GEBV as compared with traditional Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) was examined for a number of alternatives, including low heritability, number of generations of training, marker density, initial distributions, and effective population size (Ne). Results show that the more the generations of data in which both genotypes and phenotypes were collected, termed training generations (TG), the better the accuracy and persistency of accuracy based on GEBV. GEBV excelled for traits of low heritability regardless of initial equilibrium conditions, as opposed to traditional marker-assisted selection, which is not useful for traits of low heritability. Effective population size is critical for populations starting in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium but not for populations started from mutation-drift equilibrium. In comparison with traditional BLUP, GEBV can exceed the accuracy of BLUP provided enough TG are included. Unfortunately selection rapidly reduces the accuracy of GEBV. In all cases examined, classic BLUP selection exceeds what was possible for GEBV selection. Even still, GEBV could have an advantage over traditional BLUP in cases such as sex-limited traits, traits that are expensive to measure, or can only be measured on relatives. A combined approach, utilizing a mixed model with a second random effect to account for quantitative trait loci in linkage equilibrium (the polygenic effect) was suggested as a way to capitalize on both methodologies.     

Selection of core animals in the Algorithm for Proven and Young using a simulation model

The Algorithm for Proven and Young (APY) enables the implementation of single‐step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) in large, genotyped populations by separating genotyped animals into core and non‐core subsets and creating a computationally efficient inverse for the genomic relationship matrix ( G ). As APY became the choice for large‐scale genomic evaluations in BLUP‐based methods, a common question is how to choose the animals in the core subset. We compared several core definitions to answer this question. Simulations comprised a moderately heritable trait for 95,010 animals and 50,000 genotypes for animals across five generations. Genotypes consisted of 25,500 SNP distributed across 15 chromosomes. Genotyping errors and missing pedigree were also mimicked. Core animals were defined based on individual generations, equal representation across generations, and at random. For a sufficiently large core size, core definitions had the same accuracies and biases, even if the core animals had imperfect genotypes. When genotyped animals had unknown parents, accuracy and bias were significantly better (p ≤ .05) for random and across generation core definitions.     

中国荷斯坦牛繁殖性状的基因组预测效果比较

旨在比较不同方法对中国荷斯坦牛繁殖性状的基因组预测效果,选择最佳的基因组预测方法及信息矩阵权重组合（τ和ω）用于实际育种。本研究利用北京地区33个牧场1998—2020年荷斯坦牛群繁殖记录,分析了3个重要繁殖性状：产犊至首次配种间隔（ICF）、青年牛配种次数（NSH）和成母牛配种次数（NSC）共98 483~197 764条表型数据。同时收集了8 718头母牛和3 477头公牛的基因芯片数据,根据具有芯片数据的牛群结构划分为公牛验证群和母牛验证群。随后,通过BLUPF90软件的AIREMLF90和BLUPF90模块利用最佳线性无偏预测（BLUP）、基因组最佳线性无偏预测（GBLUP）和一步法（ssGBLUP）对3个性状进行基因组预测,不同方法的预测效果根据准确性和无偏性来评估。结果表明,3个繁殖性状均为低遗传力性状（0.03~0.08）;ssGBLUP方法中,各性状信息矩阵的权重取值能够在一定程度上提升基因组预测的效果;ICF、NSH和NSC在母牛验证群下的最佳权重取值分别为：τ=1.3和ω=0,τ=0.5和ω=0.4以及τ=0.5和ω=0;在公牛验证群下最优权重组合分别为：τ=1.5和ω=0,τ=1.3和ω=0.8以及τ=0.5和ω=0;基于最佳权重的ssGBLUP方法准确性较BLUP和GBLUP方法准确性分别提升了0.10~0.39和0.08~0.15,且无偏性最接近于1。综上,使用最佳权重组合的ssGBLUP时,各性状基因组预测结果具有较高准确性和无偏性,建议作为中国荷斯坦牛繁殖性状基因组选择方法。     

Investigating pig survival in different production phases using genomic models

Pig survival is an economically important trait with relevant social welfare implications, thus standing out as an important selection criterion for the current pig farming system. We aimed to estimate (co)variance components for survival in different production phases in a crossbred pig population as well as to investigate the benefit of including genomic information through single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) on the prediction accuracy of survival traits compared with results from traditional BLUP. Individual survival records on, at most, 64,894 crossbred piglets were evaluated under two multi-trait threshold models. The first model included farrowing, lactation, and combined postweaning survival, whereas the second model included nursery and finishing survival. Direct and maternal breeding values were estimated using BLUP and ssGBLUP methods. Furthermore, prediction accuracy, bias, and dispersion were accessed using the linear regression validation method. Direct heritability estimates for survival in all studied phases were low (from 0.02 to 0.08). Survival in preweaning phases (farrowing and lactation) was controlled by the dam and piglet additive genetic effects, although the maternal side was more important. Postweaning phases (nursery, finishing, and the combination of both) showed the same or higher direct heritabilities compared with preweaning phases. The genetic correlations between survival traits within preweaning and postweaning phases were favorable and strong, but correlations between preweaning and postweaning phases were moderate. The prediction accuracy of survival traits was low, although it increased by including genomic information through ssGBLUP compared with the prediction accuracy from BLUP. Direct and maternal breeding values were similarly accurate with BLUP, but direct breeding values benefited more from genomic information. Overall, a slight increase in bias was observed when genomic information was included, whereas dispersion of breeding values was greatly reduced. Combined postweaning survival presented higher direct heritability than in the preweaning phases and the highest prediction accuracy among all evaluated production phases, therefore standing out as a candidate trait for improving survival. Survival is a complex trait with low heritability; however, important genetic gains can still be obtained, especially under a genomic prediction framework.     

Determining the stability of accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values in future generations in commercial pig populations

Genomic information has a limited dimensionality (number of independent chromosome segments [M_e]) related to the effective population size. Under the additive model, the persistence of genomic accuracies over generations should be high when the nongenomic information (pedigree and phenotypes) is equivalent to M_e animals with high accuracy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the decay in accuracy over time and to compare the magnitude of decay with varying quantities of data and with traits of low and moderate heritability. The dataset included 161,897 phenotypic records for a growth trait (GT) and 27,669 phenotypic records for a fitness trait (FT) related to prolificacy in a population with dimensionality around 5,000. The pedigree included 404,979 animals from 2008 to 2020, of which 55,118 were genotyped. Two single-trait models were used with all ancestral data and sliding subsets of 3-, 2-, and 1-generation intervals. Single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) was used to compute genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). Estimated accuracies were calculated by the linear regression (LR) method. The validation population consisted of single generations succeeding the training population and continued forward for all generations available. The average accuracy for the first generation after training with all ancestral data was 0.69 and 0.46 for GT and FT, respectively. The average decay in accuracy from the first generation after training to generation 9 was −0.13 and −0.19 for GT and FT, respectively. The persistence of accuracy improves with more data. Old data have a limited impact on the predictions for young animals for a trait with a large amount of information but a bigger impact for a trait with less information.     

Efficient approximation of reliabilities for single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor models with the Algorithm for Proven and Young

The objectives of this study were to develop an efficient algorithm for calculating prediction error variances (PEVs) for genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) models using the Algorithm for Proven and Young (APY), extend it to single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP), and apply this algorithm for approximating the theoretical reliabilities for single- and multiple-trait models in ssGBLUP. The PEV with APY was calculated by block sparse inversion, efficiently exploiting the sparse structure of the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix with APY. Single-step GBLUP reliabilities were approximated by combining reliabilities with and without genomic information in terms of effective record contributions. Multi-trait reliabilities relied on single-trait results adjusted using the genetic and residual covariance matrices among traits. Tests involved two datasets provided by the American Angus Association. A small dataset (Data1) was used for comparing the approximated reliabilities with the reliabilities obtained by the inversion of the left-hand side of the mixed model equations. A large dataset (Data2) was used for evaluating the computational performance of the algorithm. Analyses with both datasets used single-trait and three-trait models. The number of animals in the pedigree ranged from 167,951 in Data1 to 10,213,401 in Data2, with 50,000 and 20,000 genotyped animals for single-trait and multiple-trait analysis, respectively, in Data1 and 335,325 in Data2. Correlations between estimated and exact reliabilities obtained by inversion ranged from 0.97 to 0.99, whereas the intercept and slope of the regression of the exact on the approximated reliabilities ranged from 0.00 to 0.04 and from 0.93 to 1.05, respectively. For the three-trait model with the largest dataset (Data2), the elapsed time for the reliability estimation was 11 min. The computational complexity of the proposed algorithm increased linearly with the number of genotyped animals and with the number of traits in the model. This algorithm can efficiently approximate the theoretical reliability of genomic estimated breeding values in ssGBLUP with APY for large numbers of genotyped animals at a low cost.     

Accurate genomic predictions for BCWD resistance in rainbow trout are achieved using low‐density SNP panels: Evidence that long‐range LD is a major contributing factor

Previously accurate genomic predictions for Bacterial cold water disease (BCWD) resistance in rainbow trout were obtained using a medium‐density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array. Here, the impact of lower‐density SNP panels on the accuracy of genomic predictions was investigated in a commercial rainbow trout breeding population. Using progeny performance data, the accuracy of genomic breeding values (GEBV) using 35K, 10K, 3K, 1K, 500, 300 and 200 SNP panels as well as a panel with 70 quantitative trait loci (QTL)‐flanking SNP was compared. The GEBVs were estimated using the Bayesian method BayesB, single‐step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) and weighted ssGBLUP (wssGBLUP). The accuracy of GEBVs remained high despite the sharp reductions in SNP density, and even with 500 SNP accuracy was higher than the pedigree‐based prediction (0.50–0.56 versus 0.36). Furthermore, the prediction accuracy with the 70 QTL‐flanking SNP (0.65–0.72) was similar to the panel with 35K SNP (0.65–0.71). Genomewide linkage disequilibrium (LD) analysis revealed strong LD (r² ≥ 0.25) spanning on average over 1 Mb across the rainbow trout genome. This long‐range LD likely contributed to the accurate genomic predictions with the low‐density SNP panels. Population structure analysis supported the hypothesis that long‐range LD in this population may be caused by admixture. Results suggest that lower‐cost, low‐density SNP panels can be used for implementing genomic selection for BCWD resistance in rainbow trout breeding programs.     

Impact of fitting dominance and additive effects on accuracy of genomic prediction of breeding values in layers

Most genomic prediction studies fit only additive effects in models to estimate genomic breeding values (GEBV). However, if dominance genetic effects are an important source of variation for complex traits, accounting for them may improve the accuracy of GEBV. We investigated the effect of fitting dominance and additive effects on the accuracy of GEBV for eight egg production and quality traits in a purebred line of brown layers using pedigree or genomic information (42K single‐nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel). Phenotypes were corrected for the effect of hatch date. Additive and dominance genetic variances were estimated using genomic‐based [genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP)‐REML and BayesC] and pedigree‐based (PBLUP‐REML) methods. Breeding values were predicted using a model that included both additive and dominance effects and a model that included only additive effects. The reference population consisted of approximately 1800 animals hatched between 2004 and 2009, while approximately 300 young animals hatched in 2010 were used for validation. Accuracy of prediction was computed as the correlation between phenotypes and estimated breeding values of the validation animals divided by the square root of the estimate of heritability in the whole population. The proportion of dominance variance to total phenotypic variance ranged from 0.03 to 0.22 with PBLUP‐REML across traits, from 0 to 0.03 with GBLUP‐REML and from 0.01 to 0.05 with BayesC. Accuracies of GEBV ranged from 0.28 to 0.60 across traits. Inclusion of dominance effects did not improve the accuracy of GEBV, and differences in their accuracies between genomic‐based methods were small (0.01–0.05), with GBLUP‐REML yielding higher prediction accuracies than BayesC for egg production, egg colour and yolk weight, while BayesC yielded higher accuracies than GBLUP‐REML for the other traits. In conclusion, fitting dominance effects did not impact accuracy of genomic prediction of breeding values in this population.     

The efficiency of genome-wide selection for genetic improvement of net merit

Four methods of selection for net merit comprising 2 correlated traits were compared in this study: 1) EBV-only index (I?), which consists of the EBV of both traits (i.e., traditional 2-trait BLUP selection); 2) GEBV-only index (I?), which comprises the genomic EBV (GEBV) of both traits; 3) GEBV-assisted index (I?), which combines both the EBV and the GEBV of both traits; and 4) GBV-assisted index (I?), which combines both the EBV and the true genomic breeding value (GBV) of both traits. Comparisons of these indices were based on 3 evaluation criteria [selection accuracy, genetic response (ΔH), and relative efficiency] under 64 scenarios that arise from combining 2 levels of genetic correlation (r(G)), 2 ratios of genetic variances between traits, 2 ratios of the genomic variance to total genetic variances for trait 1, 4 accuracies of EBV, and 2 proportions of r(G) explained by the GBV. Both selection accuracy and genetic responses of the indices I?, I?, and I? increased as the accuracy of EBV increased, but the efficiency of the indices I? and I? relative to I? decreased as the accuracy of EBV increased. The relative efficiency of both I? and I? was generally greater when the accuracy of EBV was 0.6 than when it was 0.9, suggesting that the genomic markers are most useful to assist selection when the accuracy of EBV is low. The GBV-assisted index I? was superior to the GEBV-assisted I? in all 64 cases examined, indicating the importance of improving the accuracy of prediction of genomic breeding values. Other parameters being identical, increasing the genetic variance of a high heritability trait would increase the genetic response of the genomic indices (I?, I?, and I?). The genetic responses to I?, I?, and I(4) was greater when the genetic correlation between traits was positive (r(G) = 0.5) than when it was negative (r(G) = -0.5). The results of this study indicate that the effectiveness of the GEBV-assisted index I? is affected by heritability of and genetic correlation between traits, the ratio of genetic variances between traits, the genomic-genetic variance ratio of each index trait, the proportion of genetic correlation accounted for by the genomic markers, and the accuracy of predictions of both EBV and GBV. However, most of these affecting factors are genetic characteristics of a population that is beyond the control of the breeders. The key factor subject to manipulation is to maximize both the proportion of the genetic variance explained by GEBV and the accuracy of both GEBV and EBV. The developed procedures provide means to investigate the efficiency of various genomic indices for any given combination of the genetic factors studied.     

一种适用于单胎动物多品种选择的基因组关系矩阵

旨在提出一种新型基因组关系矩阵并验证其在多品种联合群体中的模拟应用效果。本研究利用QMsim软件模拟牛的表型数据和基因型数据;利用Gmatrix软件构建常规G阵;利用R语言构建新型G阵,新型G阵在常规G阵的基础上,将多品种联合群体的非哈代-温伯格平衡位点考虑在内;利用DMU软件使用“一步”法模型计算基因组估计育种值（estimated genomic breeding value,GEBV）;比较不同情况下使用两种G阵的GEBV预测准确性。结果表明,在不同遗传力及QTL数下,不对新型G阵使用A₂₂阵加权就能达到常规G阵使用A₂₂阵加权时的GEBV预测准确性。在系谱部分缺失时,新型G阵不加权较常规G阵加权时GEBV预测准确性高。证明,在系谱有部分缺失时,新型G阵对多品种GEBV的预测有一定优势。     

基于简化基因组测序技术和基因芯片技术比较研究黄羽肉鸡基因组选择

旨在比较简化基因组测序技术和基因芯片技术实施基因组选择的基因组估计育种值（GEBV）准确性。本研究在AH肉鸡资源群体F₂代中随机选取395个个体（其中公鸡212只,母鸡183只,来自8个半同胞家系）,同时采用10×SLAF测序技术和Illumina Chicken 60K SNP芯片进行基因标记分型。采用基因组最佳无偏估计法（GBLUP）和BayesCπ对6周体重、12周体重、日均增重、日均采食量、饲料转化率和剩余采食量等6个性状进行GEBV准确性比较研究,并采用5折交叉验证法验证。结果表明,采用同一基因标记分型平台,两种育种值估计方法所得GEBV准确性差异不显著（P>0.05）;不同的性状对基因标记分型平台的选择存在差异,对于6周体重,使用基因芯片可获得更高的GEBV准确性（P<0.05）,对于剩余采食量,则使用简化基因组测序可获得更高的GEBV准确性（P<0.05）。综合6个性状GEBV均值比较,两个基因标记分型平台之间差异不到0.01,高通量测序技术和基因芯片技术都可以用于黄羽肉鸡基因组选择。