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.     

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。     

Comparison between Reduced-Representation Genome Sequencing and SNP Chip for Genomic Selection in Yellow-feathered Broiler

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of the genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) using reduced-representation genome sequencing technology and SNP chip technology to implement genomic selection. A total of 395 individuals (212♂+ 183♀, from 8 half-sib families) were randomly selected from F₂ generation of AH broiler resource population, and genotyped with 10×specific-locus amplified fragment sequencing (SLAF-seq) and Illumina Chicken 60K SNP BeadChip. Genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and BayesCπ were used to compare the accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) for 6 traits: body weight at the 6^th week, body weight at the 12^th week, average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), feed conversion ratio (FCR) and residual feed intake (RFI). A 5-fold cross validation procedure was used to verify the accuracies of GEBV between prediction models and between genotyping platforms. The results showed that there was no significant difference between accuracies of GEBV predicted by GBLUP and BayesCπ using the same genotyping platform(P>0.05). The superiority of the two genotyping platforms was different for different traits. For body weight at the 6^th week, the accuracy of GEBV was higher using chip SNPs (P<0.05). On the contrary, the accuracy was higher using SLAF-seq for residual feed intake (P<0.05). Comprehensive comparison of the means of GEBV for 6 traits, the difference between the two genotyping platforms was less than 0.01, therefore, both high throughput sequencing and chip SNPs can be used for genomic selection in yellow-feathered broiler.     

快速型黄羽肉鸡饲料利用效率性状的基因组选择研究

旨在探究快速型黄羽肉鸡饲料利用效率性状的遗传参数,评估不同方法所得估计育种值的准确性。本研究以自主培育的快速型黄羽肉鸡E系1 923个个体（其中公鸡1 199只,母鸡724只）为研究素材,采用"京芯一号"鸡55K SNP芯片进行基因分型。分别利用传统最佳线性无偏预测（BLUP）、基因组最佳线性无偏预测（GBLUP）和一步法（SSGBLUP）3种方法,基于加性效应模型进行遗传参数估计,通过10倍交叉验证比较3种方法所得估计育种值的准确性。研究性状包括4个生长性状和4个饲料利用效率性状：42日龄体重（BW42D）、56日龄体重（BW56D）、日均增重（ADG）、日均采食量（ADFI）和饲料转化率（FCR）、剩余采食量（RFI）、剩余增长体重（RG）、剩余采食和增长体重（RIG）。结果显示,4个饲料利用效率性状均为低遗传力（0.08~0.20）,其他生长性状为中等偏低遗传力（0.11~0.35）;4个饲料利用效率性状间均为高度遗传相关,RFI、RIG与ADFI间为中度遗传相关,RFI与ADG间无显著相关性,RIG与ADG间为低度遗传相关。本研究在获得SSGBLUP方法的最佳基因型和系谱矩阵权重比基础上,比较8个性状的估计育种值准确性,SSGBLUP方法获得的准确性分别比传统BLUP和GBLUP方法提高3.85%~14.43%和5.21%~17.89%。综上,以RIG为选择指标能够在降低日均采食量的同时保持日均增重,比RFI更适合快速型黄羽肉鸡的选育目标;采用最佳权重比进行SSGBLUP分析,对目标性状估计育种值的预测性能最优,建议作为快速型黄羽肉鸡基因组选择方法。     

比较机器学习等算法对肉鸡产蛋性状育种值估计的准确性

我国白羽肉鸡育种中,通过遗传途径提高产蛋数和控制合适的蛋重是培育优良品系的一个重要方面。为探索适合我国白羽肉鸡育种中的基因组选择模型,本研究以2 474只白羽肉鸡品系的产蛋性状为研究对象,主要分析了机器学习算法KAML、BLUP(包括：PBLUP、GBLUP、SSGBLUP)和Bayes(包括：Bayes A、Bayes B和Bayes Cπ)方法对产蛋数和蛋重性状的预测准确性,准确性以5倍交叉验证进行评估。利用系谱以及基因组信息估计了产蛋数和蛋重性状的遗传力和遗传相关。结果表明,产蛋数性状遗传力为0.061~0.16,属于低遗传力性状;蛋重遗传力为0.28~0.39,属于中等遗传力性状;产蛋数与蛋重是中等遗传负相关(-0.518~-0.184),不同阶段产蛋数之间是强的遗传正相关(0.736~0.998)。不同模型预测43周产蛋数和52周蛋重的育种值估计准确性结果表明,KAML方法对两者的预测准确性分别为0.115和0.266,与GBLUP方法(准确性分别为0.118和0.283)和SSGBLUP方法(准确性分别为0.136和0.259)的准确性差异显著,同时显著低于Bayes方法(准确性分别为0.230~0.239、0.336~0.340)的预测准确性, PBLUP方法预测准确性最低(准确性分别为0.095和0.246)。因此,在白羽肉鸡产蛋数和蛋重性状中应用Bayes方法将获得最高的育种值估计准确性。     

Modeling genetic differences of combined broiler chicken populations in single-step GBLUP

The introduction of animals from a different environment or population is a common practice in commercial livestock populations. In this study, we modeled the inclusion of a group of external birds into a local broiler chicken population for the purpose of genomic evaluations. The pedigree was composed of 242,413 birds and genotypes were available for 107,216 birds. A five-trait model that included one growth, two yield, and two efficiency traits was used for the analyses. The strategies to model the introduction of external birds were to include a fixed effect representing the origin of parents and to use unknown parent groups (UPG) or metafounders (MF). Genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) were obtained with single-step GBLUP using the Algorithm for Proven and Young. Bias, dispersion, and accuracy of GEBV for the validation birds, that is, from the most recent generation, were computed. The bias and dispersion were estimated with the linear regression (LR) method,whereas accuracy was estimated by the LR method and predictive ability. When fixed UPG were fit without estimated inbreeding, the model did not converge. In contrast, models with fixed UPG and estimated inbreeding or random UPG converged and resulted in similar GEBV. The inclusion of an extra fixed effect in the model made the GEBV unbiased and reduced the inflation. Genomic predictions with MF were slightly biased and inflated due to the unbalanced number of observations assigned to each metafounder. When combining local and external populations, the greatest accuracy can be obtained by adding an extra fixed effect to account for the origin of parents plus UPG with estimated inbreeding or random UPG. To estimate the accuracy, the LR method is more consistent among scenarios, whereas the predictive ability greatly depends on the model specification.     

结合GWAS先验标记信息的肉鸡RFI性状全基因组选择研究

旨在比较结合全基因组关联分析(genome-wide association study, GWAS)先验标记信息的基因组育种值(genomic estimated breeding value, GEBV)估计与基因组最佳线性无偏预测(genomic best linear unbiased prediction, GBLUP)方法对鸡剩余采食量性状育种值估计的准确性,为提高基因组选择准确性提供理论与技术支持。本研究选用广西金陵花鸡3个世代共2 510个个体作为素材,其中公鸡1 648只,母鸡862只,以42～56日龄期间的剩余采食量(residual feed intake, RFI)为目标性状,将试验群体随机分为两组,其中一组作为先验标记信息发现群体,用于GWAS分析并筛选最显著的top5%、top10%、top15%和top20%的位点作为先验标记信息;另外一组分别结合不同的先验标记信息进行遗传参数估计并比较基因组育种值的预测准确性,使用重复10次的五倍交叉验证法获取准确性,随后两组群体再进行交叉验证。研究结果表明,GBLUP计算RFI的遗传力为0.153,预测准确性为0.38...     

Influence of model specifications on the reliabilities of genomic prediction in a Swedish-Finnish red breed cattle population

Using a combined multi‐breed reference population, this study explored the influence of model specification and the effect of including a polygenic effect on the reliability of genomic breeding values (DGV and GEBV). The combined reference population consisted of 2986 Swedish Red Breed (SRB) and Finnish Ayrshire (FAY) dairy cattle. Bayesian methodology (common prior and mixture models with different prior distribution settings for the marker effects) as well as a best linear unbiased prediction with a genomic relationship matrix [genomic best linear unbiased predictor (GBLUP)] was used in the prediction of DGV. Mixture models including a polygenic effect were used to predict GEBV. In total, five traits with low, high and medium heritability were analysed. For the models using a mixture prior distribution, reliabilities of DGV tended to decrease with an increasing proportion of markers with small effects. The influence of the inclusion of a polygenic effect on the reliability of DGV varied across traits and model specifications. Average correlation between DGV with the Mendelian sampling term, across traits, was highest (R² = 0.25) for the GBLUP model and decreased with increasing proportion of markers with large effects. Reliabilities increased when DGV and parent average information were combined in an index. The GBLUP model with the largest gain across traits in the reliability of the index achieved the highest DGV mean reliability. However, the polygenic models showed to be less biased and more consistent in the estimation of DGV regardless of the model specifications compared with the mixture models without the polygenic effect.     

Effects of ignoring inbreeding in model-based accuracy for BLUP and SSGBLUP

Model-based accuracy, defined as the theoretical correlation between true and estimated breeding value, can be obtained for each individual as a function of its prediction error variance (PEV) and inbreeding coefficient F, in BLUP, GBLUP and SSGBLUP genetic evaluations. However, for computational convenience, inbreeding is often ignored in two places. First, in the computation of reliability = 1-PEV/(1 + F). Second, in the set-up, using Henderson's rules, of the inverse of the pedigree-based relationship matrix A . Both approximations have an effect in the computation of model-based accuracy and result in wrong values. In this work, first we present a reminder of the theory and extend it to SSGBLUP. Second, we quantify the error of ignoring inbreeding with real data in three scenarios: BLUP evaluation and SSGBLUP in Uruguayan dairy cattle, and BLUP evaluations in a line of rabbit closed for >40 generations with steady increase of inbreeding up to an average of 0.30. We show that ignoring inbreeding in the set-up of the A- inverse is equivalent to assume that non-inbred animals are actually inbred. This results in an increase of apparent PEV that is negligible for dairy cattle but considerable for rabbit. Ignoring inbreeding in reliability = 1-PEV/(1 + F) leads to underestimation of reliability for BLUP evaluations, and this underestimation is very large for rabbit. For SSGBLUP in dairy cattle, it leads to both underestimation and overestimation of reliability, both for genotyped and non-genotyped animals. We strongly recommend to include inbreeding both in the set-up of A- inverse and in the computation of reliability from PEVs.     

Genomic and single-step evaluations of carcass traits of young bulls in dual-purpose cattle

Genetic evaluations for carcass traits of young bulls in Normande and Montbeliarde breeds are currently being developed in France. In order to determine a suitable genomic evaluation for three carcass traits of young bulls, genomic breeding values were estimated for young candidates to selection using different approaches. Records of 111,789 Normande and 118,183 Montbeliarde were used. Average progeny pre-adjusted performances (DYD) were calculated for sires. Evaluation approaches were compared based on an assessment of their accuracy (correlation between DYD and estimated breeding values [EBVs]) and bias (regression coefficient of DYD on EBVs) on the 20% youngest AI sires. All genomic approaches were generally more accurate than BLUP (+.045 to +.116 correlation points), except for age at slaughter where single-step GBLUP (SSGBLUP) was the only genomic method leading to a greater accuracy (+.038 to +.126 points). The best setting of the SSGBLUP relationship matrix was characterized by a weight of 30% for pedigree information in the genomic relationship matrix. SSGBLUP was the most valuable evaluation approach for the evaluation of carcass traits of Normande and Montbeliarde young bulls.     

基于基因组和系谱信息的不同选配方案效果模拟研究

基因组选配（genomic mating,GM）是利用基因组信息进行优化的选种选配,可以有效控制群体近交水平的同时实现最大化的遗传进展。但基因组选配是对群体中所有个体进行选配,这与实际的育种工作有点相悖。本研究模拟了遗传力为0.5的9 000头个体的基础群数据,每个世代根据GEBV选择30头公畜、900头母畜作为种用个体,而后使用基因组选配、同质选配、异质选配、随机交配4种不同的选配方案。其中基因组选配中分别选取遗传进展最大的解、家系间方差最大的解、近交最小的解所对应的交配方案进行选育。每种方案选育5个世代,比较其后代群体的平均GEBV、每世代的遗传进展、近交系数、遗传方差,并重复5次取平均值。结果表明,3种基因组选配方案的ΔG均显著高于随机交配和异质选配（P<0.01）,而且,选取遗传进展最大的基因组选配方案的ΔG比同质选配还高出4.3%。3种基因组选配的方案的ΔF比同质选配低22.2%~94.1%,而且选取近交最小的基因组选配方案ΔF比异质选配低11.8%。同质选配的遗传方差迅速降低,在第5世代显著低于除基因组选配中选择遗传进展最大的方案以外的所有方案（P<0.05）,3种基因组选配方案的遗传方差比同质选配高10.8%~32.2%。这表明基因组选配不仅可以获得比同质选配更高的遗传进展,同时有效的降低了近交水平,并且减缓了遗传方差降低速度,保证了一定的遗传变异。基因组选配作为一种有效的可持续育种方法,在畜禽育种中开展十分有必要。     

Genomic best linear unbiased prediction method reflecting the degree of linkage disequilibrium

The degree of linkage disequilibrium (LD) between markers differs depending on the location of the genome; this difference biases genetic evaluation by genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP). To correct this bias, we used three GBLUP methods reflecting the degree of LD (GBLUP‐LD). In the three GBLUP‐LD methods, genomic relationship matrices were conducted from single nucleotide polymorphism markers weighted according to local LD levels. The predictive abilities of GBLUP‐LD were investigated by estimating variance components and assessing the accuracies of estimated breeding values using simulation data. When quantitative trait loci (QTL) were located at weak LD regions, the predictive abilities of the three GBLUP‐LD methods were superior to those of GBLUP and Bayesian lasso except when the number of QTL was small. In particular, the superiority of GBLUP‐LD increased with decreasing trait heritability. The rates of QTL at weak LD regions would increase when selection by GBLUP continues; this consequently decreases the predictive ability of GBLUP. Thus, the GBLUP‐LD could be applicable for populations selected by GBLUP for a long time. However, if QTL were located at strong LD regions, the accuracies of three GBLUP‐LD methods were lower than GBLUP and Bayesian lasso.     

Effect of genotyped bulls with different numbers of phenotyped progenies on quantitative trait loci detection and genomic evaluation in a simulated cattle population

The objective of this study was to assess the effect of genotyped bulls with different numbers of phenotyped progenies on quantitative trait loci (QTL) detection and genomic evaluation using a simulated cattle population. Twelve generations (G1–G12) were simulated from the base generation (G0). The recent population had different effective population sizes, heritability, and number of QTL. G0–G4 were used for pedigree information. A total of 300 genotyped bulls from G5–G10 were randomly selected. Their progenies were generated in G6–G11 with different numbers of progeny per bull. Scenarios were considered according to the number of progenies and whether the genotypes were possessed by the bulls or the progenies. A genome‐wide association study and genomic evaluation were performed with a single‐step genomic best linear unbiased prediction method to calculate the power of QTL detection and the genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV). We found that genotyped bulls could be available for QTL detection depending on conditions. Additionally, using a reference population, including genotyped bulls, which had more progeny phenotypes, enabled a more accurate prediction of GEBV. However, it is desirable to have more than 4,500 individuals consisting of both genotypes and phenotypes for practical genomic evaluation.     

Accuracy of genomic prediction using imputed whole‐genome sequence data in white layers

There is an increasing interest in using whole‐genome sequence data in genomic selection breeding programmes. Prediction of breeding values is expected to be more accurate when whole‐genome sequence is used, because the causal mutations are assumed to be in the data. We performed genomic prediction for the number of eggs in white layers using imputed whole‐genome resequence data including ~4.6 million SNPs. The prediction accuracies based on sequence data were compared with the accuracies from the 60 K SNP panel. Predictions were based on genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) as well as a Bayesian variable selection model (BayesC). Moreover, the prediction accuracy from using different types of variants (synonymous, non‐synonymous and non‐coding SNPs) was evaluated. Genomic prediction using the 60 K SNP panel resulted in a prediction accuracy of 0.74 when GBLUP was applied. With sequence data, there was a small increase (~1%) in prediction accuracy over the 60 K genotypes. With both 60 K SNP panel and sequence data, GBLUP slightly outperformed BayesC in predicting the breeding values. Selection of SNPs more likely to affect the phenotype (i.e. non‐synonymous SNPs) did not improve the accuracy of genomic prediction. The fact that sequence data were based on imputation from a small number of sequenced animals may have limited the potential to improve the prediction accuracy. A small reference population (n = 1004) and possible exclusion of many causal SNPs during quality control can be other possible reasons for limited benefit of sequence data. We expect, however, that the limited improvement is because the 60 K SNP panel was already sufficiently dense to accurately determine the relationships between animals in our data.     

Genomic selection in American mink (Neovison vison) using a single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction model for size and quality traits graded on live mink

Genomic selection relies on single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which are often collected using medium-density SNP arrays. In mink, no such array is available; instead, genotyping by sequencing (GBS) can be used to generate marker information. Here, we evaluated the effect of genomic selection for mink using GBS. We compared the estimated breeding values (EBVs) from single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (SSGBLUP) models to the EBV from ordinary pedigree-based BLUP models. We analyzed seven size and quality traits from the live grading of brown mink. The phenotype data consisted of ~20,600 records for the seven traits from the mink born between 2013 and 2016. Genotype data included 2,103 mink born between 2010 and 2014, mostly breeding animals. In total, 28,336 SNP markers from 391 scaffolds were available for genomic prediction. The pedigree file included 29,212 mink. The predictive ability was assessed by the correlation (r) between progeny trait deviation (PTD) and EBV, and the regression of PTD on EBV, using 5-fold cross-validation. For each fold, one-fifth of animals born in 2014 formed the validation set. For all traits, the SSGBLUP model resulted in higher accuracies than the BLUP model. The average increase in accuracy was 15% (between 3% for fur clarity and 28% for body weight). For three traits (body weight, silky appearance of the under wool, and guard hair thickness), the difference in r between the two models was significant (P < 0.05). For all traits, the regression slopes of PTD on EBV from SSGBLUP models were closer to 1 than regression slopes from BLUP models, indicating SSGBLUP models resulted in less bias of EBV for selection candidates than the BLUP models. However, the regression coefficients did not differ significantly. In conclusion, the SSGBLUP model is superior to conventional BLUP model in the accurate selection of superior animals, and, thus, it would increase genetic gain in a selective breeding program. In addition, this study shows that GBS data work well in genomic prediction in mink, demonstrating the potential of GBS for genomic selection in livestock species.     

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.     

Assessment of bagging GBLUP for whole‐genome prediction of broiler chicken traits

Bootstrap aggregation (bagging) is a resampling method known to produce more accurate predictions when predictors are unstable or when the number of markers is much larger than sample size, because of variance reduction capabilities. The purpose of this study was to compare genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) with bootstrap aggregated sampling GBLUP (Bagged GBLUP, or BGBLUP) in terms of prediction accuracy. We used a 600 K Affymetrix platform with 1351 birds genotyped and phenotyped for three traits in broiler chickens; body weight, ultrasound measurement of breast muscle and hen house egg production. The predictive performance of GBLUP versus BGBLUP was evaluated in different scenarios consisting of including or excluding the TOP 20 markers from a standard genome‐wide association study (GWAS) as fixed effects in the GBLUP model, and varying training sample sizes and allelic frequency bins. Predictive performance was assessed via five replications of a threefold cross‐validation using the correlation between observed and predicted values, and prediction mean‐squared error. GBLUP overfitted the training set data, and BGBLUP delivered a better predictive ability in testing sets. Treating the TOP 20 markers from the GWAS into the model as fixed effects improved prediction accuracy and added advantages to BGBLUP over GBLUP. The performance of GBLUP and BGBLUP at different allele frequency bins and training sample sizes was similar. In general, results of this study confirm that BGBLUP can be valuable for enhancing genome‐enabled prediction of complex traits.     

Genomic predictions across Nordic Holstein and Nordic Red using the genomic best linear unbiased prediction model with different genomic relationship matrices

This study investigated genomic predictions across Nordic Holstein and Nordic Red using various genomic relationship matrices. Different sources of information, such as consistencies of linkage disequilibrium (LD) phase and marker effects, were used to construct the genomic relationship matrices (G‐matrices) across these two breeds. Single‐trait genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) model and two‐trait GBLUP model were used for single‐breed and two‐breed genomic predictions. The data included 5215 Nordic Holstein bulls and 4361 Nordic Red bulls, which was composed of three populations: Danish Red, Swedish Red and Finnish Ayrshire. The bulls were genotyped with 50 000 SNP chip. Using the two‐breed predictions with a joint Nordic Holstein and Nordic Red reference population, accuracies increased slightly for all traits in Nordic Red, but only for some traits in Nordic Holstein. Among the three subpopulations of Nordic Red, accuracies increased more for Danish Red than for Swedish Red and Finnish Ayrshire. This is because closer genetic relationships exist between Danish Red and Nordic Holstein. Among Danish Red, individuals with higher genomic relationship coefficients with Nordic Holstein showed more increased accuracies in the two‐breed predictions. Weighting the two‐breed G‐matrices by LD phase consistencies, marker effects or both did not further improve accuracies of the two‐breed predictions.     

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.     

Short communication: investigation of the feasibility of genomic selection in Icelandic Cattle

Icelandic Cattle is a local dairy cattle breed in Iceland. With about 26,000 breeding females, it is by far the largest among the indigenous Nordic cattle breeds. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of genomic selection in Icelandic Cattle. Pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction (PBLUP) and single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) were compared. Accuracy, bias, and dispersion of estimated breeding values (EBV) for milk yield (MY), fat yield (FY), protein yield (PY), and somatic cell score (SCS) were estimated in a cross validation-based design. Accuracy (r^) was estimated by the correlation between EBV and corrected phenotype in a validation set. The accuracy (r^) of predictions using ssGBLUP increased by 13, 23, 19, and 20 percentage points for MY, FY, PY, and SCS for genotyped animals, compared with PBLUP. The accuracy of nongenotyped animals was not improved for MY and PY, but increased by 0.9 and 3.5 percentage points for FY and SCS. We used the linear regression (LR) method to quantify relative improvements in accuracy, bias (Δ^), and dispersion (b^) of EBV. Using the LR method, the relative improvements in accuracy of validation from PBLUP to ssGBLUP were 43%, 60%, 50%, and 48% for genotyped animals for MY, FY, PY, and SCS. Single-step GBLUP EBV were less underestimated (Δ^), and less overdispersed (b^) than PBLUP EBV for FY and PY. Pedigree-based BLUP EBV were close to unbiased for MY and SCS. Single-step GBLUP underestimated MY EBV but overestimated SCS EBV. Based on the average accuracy of 0.45 for ssGBLUP EBV obtained in this study, selection intensities according to the breeding scheme of Icelandic Cattle, and assuming a generation interval of 2.0 yr for sires of bulls, sires of dams and dams of bulls, genetic gain in Icelandic Cattle could be increased by about 50% relative to the current breeding scheme.