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

被引:2
|
作者
Abdollahi-Arpanahi, Rostam [1 ]
Lourenco, Daniela [1 ]
Misztal, Ignacy [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Georgia, Dept Anim & Dairy Sci, Athens, GA 30602 USA
基金
美国食品与农业研究所;
关键词
breeding values; genetic gain; genomic preselection; Mendelian sampling; GENETIC EVALUATION; FULL PEDIGREE; BIAS; INFORMATION; ACCURACY; BLUP;
D O I
10.1093/jas/skab243
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
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 similar to 842k genotypes and 11.5M animals in pedigree, and 3) a purebred broiler chicken dataset included similar to 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.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Genomic selection through single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction improves the accuracy of evaluation in Hanwoo cattle
    Park, Mi Na
    Alam, Mahboob
    Kim, Sidong
    Park, Byoungho
    Lee, Seung Hwan
    Lee, Sung Soo
    [J]. ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCES, 2020, 33 (10): : 1544 - 1557
  • [2] Genomic prediction using pooled data in a single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction framework
    Baller, Johnna L.
    Kachman, Stephen D.
    Kuehn, Larry A.
    Spangler, Matthew L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2020, 98 (06)
  • [3] Improving the accuracy of genomic evaluation for linear body measurement traits using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction in Hanwoo beef cattle
    Naserkheil, Masoumeh
    Lee, Deuk Hwan
    Mehrban, Hossein
    [J]. BMC GENETICS, 2020, 21 (01)
  • [4] Improving the accuracy of genomic evaluation for linear body measurement traits using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction in Hanwoo beef cattle
    Masoumeh Naserkheil
    Deuk Hwan Lee
    Hossein Mehrban
    [J]. BMC Genetics, 21
  • [5] Solving efficiently large single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction models
    Stranden, I.
    Matilainen, K.
    Aamand, G. P.
    Mantysaari, E. A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS, 2017, 134 (03) : 264 - 274
  • [6] The impact of selective genotyping on the response to selection using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction
    Howard, Jeremy T.
    Rathje, Tom A.
    Bruns, Caitlyn E.
    Wilson-Wells, Danielle F.
    Kachman, Stephen D.
    Spangler, Matthew L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2018, 96 (11) : 4532 - 4542
  • [7] The impact of truncating data on the predictive ability for single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction
    Howard, Jeremy T.
    Rathje, Tom A.
    Bruns, Caitlyn E.
    Wilson-Wells, Danielle F.
    Kachman, Stephen D.
    Spangler, Matthew L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS, 2018, 135 (04) : 251 - 262
  • [8] Genetic evaluations in cattle using the single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor
    Amaya Martinez, Alejandro
    Martinez Sarmiento, Rodrigo
    Ceron-Munoz, Mario
    [J]. REVISTA CORPOICA-CIENCIA Y TECNOLOGIA AGROPECUARIA, 2020, 21 (01):
  • [9] Exploring unknown parent groups and metafounders in single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction: Insights from a simulated cattle population
    Himmelbauer, Judith
    Schwarzenbacher, Hermann
    Fuerst, Christian
    Fuerst-Waltl, Birgit
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2024, 107 (10) : 8170 - 8192
  • [10] Weighted Single-Step Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction Method Application for Assessing Pigs on Meat Productivity and Reproduction Traits
    Kabanov, Artem
    Melnikova, Ekaterina
    Nikitin, Sergey
    Somova, Maria
    Fomenko, Oleg
    Volkova, Valeria
    Kostyunina, Olga
    Karpushkina, Tatiana
    Martynova, Elena
    Trebunskikh, Elena
    [J]. ANIMALS, 2022, 12 (13):