Investigating the impact of preselection on subsequent single-step genomic BLUP evaluation of preselected animals

被引:16
|
作者
Jibrila, Ibrahim [1 ]
ten Napel, Jan [1 ]
Vandenplas, Jeremie [1 ]
Veerkamp, Roel F. [1 ]
Calus, Mario P. L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Wageningen Univ & Res, Anim Breeding & Genom, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, NL-6708 PB Wageningen, Netherlands
关键词
GENETIC EVALUATIONS; BREEDING SCHEMES; SELECTION; BIAS; POPULATIONS; PREDICTIONS; PARAMETERS; VARIANCE;
D O I
10.1186/s12711-020-00562-6
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
Background Preselection of candidates, hereafter referred to as preselection, is a common practice in breeding programs. Preselection can cause bias and accuracy loss in subsequent pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction (PBLUP). However, the impact of preselection on subsequent single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) is not completely clear yet. Therefore, in this study, we investigated, across different heritabilities, the impact of intensity and type of preselection on subsequent ssGBLUP evaluation of preselected animals. Methods We simulated a nucleus of a breeding programme, in which a recent population of 15 generations was produced with PBLUP-based selection. In generation 15 of this recent population, the parents of the next generation were preselected using several preselection scenarios. These scenarios were combinations of three intensities of preselection (no, high or very high preselection) and three types of preselection (genomic, parental average or random), across three heritabilities (0.5, 0.3 or 0.1). Following each preselection scenario, a subsequent evaluation was performed using ssGBLUP by excluding all the information from the preculled animals, and these genetic evaluations were compared in terms of accuracy and bias for the preselected animals, and in terms of realized genetic gain. Results Type of preselection affected selection accuracy at both preselection and subsequent evaluation stages. While preselection accuracy decreased, accuracy in the subsequent ssGBLUP evaluation increased, from genomic to parent average to random preselection scenarios. Bias was always negligible. Genetic gain decreased from genomic to parent average to random preselection scenarios. Genetic gain also decreased with increasing intensity of preselection, but only by a maximum of 0.1 additive genetic standard deviation from no to very high genomic preselection scenarios. Conclusions Using ssGBLUP in subsequent evaluations prevents preselection bias, irrespective of intensity and type of preselection, and heritability. With GPS, in addition to reducing the phenotyping effort considerably, the use of ssGBLUP in subsequent evaluations realizes only a slightly lower genetic gain than that realized without preselection. This is especially the case for traits that are expensive to measure (e.g. feed intake of individual broiler chickens), and traits for which phenotypes can only be measured at advanced stages of life (e.g. litter size in pigs).
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Invited review: Unknown-parent groups and metafounders in single-step genomic BLUP
    Masuda, Yutaka
    VanRaden, Paul M.
    Tsuruta, Shogo
    Lourenco, Daniela A. L.
    Misztal, Ignacy
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2022, 105 (02) : 923 - 939
  • [22] Single-Step Genomic BLUP With Unknown Parent Groups and Metafounders in Norwegian Red Evaluations
    Belay, Tesfaye K.
    Gjuvsland, Arne B.
    Jenko, Janez
    Eikje, Leiv S.
    Svendsen, Morten
    Meuwissen, Theo
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS, 2025,
  • [23] Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs
    Christensen, O. F.
    Madsen, P.
    Nielsen, B.
    Ostersen, T.
    Su, G.
    ANIMAL, 2012, 6 (10) : 1565 - 1571
  • [24] Alternative SNP weighting for multi-step and single-step genomic BLUP in the presence of causative variants
    Santana, Bruna Folegatti
    Riser, Molly
    Hay, El Hamidi A.
    Fragomeni, Breno de Oliveira
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS, 2023, 140 (06) : 679 - 694
  • [25] Alternative SNP weighting for multi-step and single-step genomic BLUP in the presence of causative variants
    Santana, Bruna
    Riser, Molly
    Fragomeni, Breno O.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2021, 99 : 228 - 228
  • [26] Bias of dairy sheep evaluations using BLUP and single-step genomic BLUP with metafounders and unknown parent groups.
    Macedo, F. L.
    Christensen, O. F.
    Astruc, J. M.
    Aguilar, I.
    Masuda, Y.
    Legarra, A.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2020, 103 : 114 - 114
  • [27] Effect of genotyping strategies on the sustained benefit of single-step genomic BLUP over multiple generations
    Sanchez-Mayor, Milagros
    Riggio, Valentina
    Navarro, Pau
    Gutierrez-Gil, Beatriz
    Haley, Chris S.
    De la Fuente, Luis Fernando
    Arranz, Juan-Jose
    Pong-Wong, Ricardo
    GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2022, 54 (01)
  • [28] Effect of genotyping strategies on the sustained benefit of single-step genomic BLUP over multiple generations
    Milagros Sánchez-Mayor
    Valentina Riggio
    Pau Navarro
    Beatriz Gutiérrez-Gil
    Chris S. Haley
    Luis Fernando De la Fuente
    Juan-José Arranz
    Ricardo Pong-Wong
    Genetics Selection Evolution, 54
  • [29] Weighting Strategies for Single-Step Genomic BLUP:An Iterative Approach for Accurate Calculation of GEBV and GWAS
    Zhang, Xinyue
    Lourenco, Daniela
    Aguilar, Ignacio
    Legarra, Andres
    Ignacy, Misztal
    FRONTIERS IN GENETICS, 2016, 7
  • [30] The single-step method of genomic breeding evaluation: an introduction
    Edel, Christian
    Goetz, Kay-Uwe
    ZUCHTUNGSKUNDE, 2023, 95 (02): : 73 - 77