Impact of Interbeef on national beef cattle evaluations

Submitted 2020-07-02 | Accepted 2020-08-22 | Available 2020-12-01https://doi.org/10.15414/afz.2020.23.mi-fpap.144-155International evaluation models for beef cattle allow to compare animals’ estimated breeding values (EBV) across different countries, thanks to sires having offspring in more than one country. In this study we aimed to provide an up-to-date picture of the Interbeef international beef cattle evaluations from a national perspective, considering both large and small populations. Limousin age-adjusted weaning weight (AWW) phenotypes were available for 3,115,598 animals from 10 European countries, born between 1972 and 2017. EBV and reliabilities were obtained using a multi-trait animal model including maternal effects where AWW from different countries are modelled as different traits. We investigated the country of origin of the sires with internationally publishable EBV and, among them, the country of origin of the top 100 sires for each country scale. All countries had 20 to 28,557 domestic sires whose EBV were publishable, according to Interbeef’s rules, on the scale of other countries. All countries, except one, had domestic sires that ranked among the top 100 sires on other country scales. Across countries, inclusion of information from relatives recorded in other countries increased the reliability of EBV for domestic animals on average by 9.6 percentage points for direct EBV, and 8.3 percentage points for maternal EBV. In conclusion, international evaluations provide small countries access to a panel of elite foreign sires with EBV on their country scale and a more accurate estimation of EBV of domestic animals, while large countries obtain EBV for their sires on the scale of different countries which helps to better promote them.Keywords: international breeding values, genotype-by-environment interaction, Interbeef, reliabilities, weaning weightReferencesBonifazi, R., Vandenplas, J., Napel, J. ten, Matilainen, K., Veerkamp, R. F., & Calus, M. P. L. (2020). Impact of sub-setting the data of the main Limousin beef cattle population on the estimates of across-country genetic correlations. Genetics Selection Evolution, 52(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-020-00551-9Bouquet, A., Venot, E., Laloë, D., Forabosco, F., Fogh, A., Pabiou, T., Coffey, M., Eriksson, J-A., Renand, G., & Phocas, F. (2009). Genetic Structure of the European Limousin Cattle Metapopulation Using Pedigree Analyses. Interbull Bullettin, 40, 98–103.Durr, J., & Philipsson, J. (2012). International cooperation: The pathway for cattle genomics. Animal Frontiers, 2(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2011-0026Fikse, W. F., & Philipsson, J. (2007). Development of international genetic evaluations of dairy cattle for sustainable breeding programs. Animal Genetic Resources, (41), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1014233900002315Goddard, M. (1985). A method of comparing sires evaluated in different countries. Livestock Production Science, 13(4), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(85)90024-7Interbeef. (2020). Interbeef Working Group, ICAR. Retrieved August 20, 2020, from https://www.icar.org/index.php/technical-bodies/working-groups/interbeef-working-group/Jorjani, H., Emanuelson, U., & Fikse, W. F. (2005). Data Subsetting Strategies for Estimation of Across-Country Genetic Correlations. Journal of Dairy Science, 88(3), 1214–1224. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72788-0Journaux, L., Wickham, B., Venot, E., & Pabiou, T. (2006). Development of Routine International Genetic Evaluation Services for Beef Cattle as an Extension of Interbull ’s Services. Interbull Bulletin, 35(1), 146–152.MiX99 Development Team. (2017). MiX99: A software package for solving large mixed model equations. Release XI/2017.Moore, S. G., & Hasler, J. F. (2017). A 100-Year Review: Reproductive technologies in dairy science. Journal of Dairy Science, 100(12), 10314–10331. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13138Mrode, R. A., & Thompson, R. (2005). Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values: Second Edition. In Linear Models For the Prediction of Animal Breeding Values: Second Edition.Philipsson, J. (2011). Interbull Developments, Global Genetic Trends and Role in the Era of Genomics. Interbull Bulletin, 44, i–xiii.Phocas, F., Donoghue, K., & Graser, H. U. (2005). Investigation of three strategies for an international genetic evaluation of beef cattle weaning weight. Genetics Selection Evolution, 37(4), 361–380. https://doi.org/10.1051/gse:2005006Quintanilla, R., Laloë, D., & Renand, G. (2002a). Heterogeneity of variances across regions for weaning weight in Charolais breed. 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 19–23. Montpellier, France.Quintanilla, R., Laloë, D., & Renand, G. (2002b). Heteroskedasticity and genotype by environment interaction across European countries for weaning weight in Charolais breed. Proceedings of the 33rd Biennial Session of ICAR, 147–150. Interlaken, Switzerland: EAAP publication N. 107, 2003.Renand, G., Laloë, D., Quintanilla, R., & Fouilloux, M. N. (2003). A first attempt of an international genetic evaluation of beef breeds in Europe. Interbull Bulletin, 31, 151–155.Robinson, G. K. (1986). That BLUP Is a Good Thing: The Estimation of Random Effects. Statistical Science, 6(1), 15–51.Schaeffer, L. R. (1994). Multiple-Country Comparison of Dairy Sires. Journal of Dairy Science, 77(9), 2671–2678. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77209-XTier, B., & Meyer, K. (2004). Approximating prediction error covariances among additive genetic effects within animals in multiple-trait and random regression models. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 121(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2003.00444.xVenot, E., Fouilloux, M. N., Forabosco, F., Fogh, A., Pabiou, T., Moore, K., Eriksson, J-A., Renand, G., Laloë, D.(2009). Interbeef genetic evaluation of Charolais and Limousine weaning weights. Interbull Bulletin, 40, 61–67.Venot, E., Pabiou, T., Hjerpe, E., Nilforooshan, M. M. A., Launay, A., & Wickham, B. W. W. (2014). Benefits ofInterbeef international genetic evaluations for weaning weight. 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production.Venot, E, Pabiou, T., Guerrier, J., Cromie, A., Journaux, L., Flynn, J., & Wickham, B. (2007). Interbeef in Practice: Example of a Joint Genetic Evaluation between France, Ireland and United Kingdom for Pure Bred Limousine Weaning Weights. Interbull Bulletin, 36, 41–47.Venot, E, Pabiou, T., Wickham, B., & Journaux, L. (2006). First Steps Towards a European Joint Genetic Evaluation of the Limousine Breed. Interbull Bulletin, 35, 141–145.Venot, Eric, Fouilloux, M. N., Sullivan, P., & Laloë, D. (2008). Level of Connectedness and Reliability in International Beef Evaluation. Interbull Bulletin, 38(June 2008), 3–7.Vishwanath, R. (2003). Artificial insemination: The state of the art. Theriogenology, 59(2), 571–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-691X(02)01241-4Wickham, B. W., & Durr, J. W. (2011). A new international infrastructure for beef cattle breeding. Animal Frontiers, 1(2), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2011-0019Wilmink, J. B. M., Meijering, A., & Engel, B. (1986). Conversion of breeding values for milk from foreign populations. Livestock Production Science, 14(3), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-6226(86)90081-3

Estimating genomic breeding values and detecting QTL using univariate and bivariate models

Background Genomic selection is particularly beneficial for difficult or expensive to measure traits. Since multi-trait selection is an important tool to deal with such cases, an important question is what the added value is of multi-trait genomic selection. Methods The simulated dataset, including a quantitative and binary trait, was analyzed with four univariate and bivariate linear models to predict breeding values for juvenile animals. Two models estimated variance components with REML using a numerator (A), or SNP based relationship matrix (G). Two SNP based Bayesian models included one (BayesA) or two distributions (BayesC) for estimated SNP effects. The bivariate BayesC model sampled QTL probabilities for each SNP conditional on both traits. Genotypes were permuted 2,000 times against phenotypes and pedigree, to obtain significance thresholds for posterior QTL probabilities. Genotypes were permuted rather than phenotypes, to retain relationships between pedigree and phenotypes, such that polygenic effects could still be estimated. Results Correlations between estimated breeding values (EBV) of different SNP based models, for juvenile animals, were greater than 0.93 (0.87) for the quantitative (binary) trait. Estimated genetic correlation was 0.71 (0.66) for model G (A). Accuracies of breeding values of SNP based models were for both traits highest for BayesC and lowest for G. Accuracies of breeding values of bivariate models were up to 0.08 higher than for univariate models. The bivariate BayesC model detected 14 out of 32 QTL for the quantitative trait, and 8 out of 22 for the binary trait. Conclusions Accuracy of EBV clearly improved for both traits using bivariate compared to univariate models. BayesC achieved highest accuracies of EBV and was also one of the methods that found most QTL. Permuting genotypes against phenotypes and pedigree in BayesC provided an effective way to derive significance thresholds for posterior QTL probabilitie

Imputation of non-genotyped individuals based on genotyped relatives: assessing the imputation accuracy of a real case scenario in dairy cattle

Background Imputation of genotypes for ungenotyped individuals could enable the use of valuable phenotypes created before the genomic era in analyses that require genotypes. The objective of this study was to investigate the accuracy of imputation of non-genotyped individuals using genotype information from relatives. Methods Genotypes were simulated for all individuals in the pedigree of a real (historical) dataset of phenotyped dairy cows and with part of the pedigree genotyped. The software AlphaImpute was used for imputation in its standard settings but also without phasing, i.e. using basic inheritance rules and segregation analysis only. Different scenarios were evaluated i.e.: (1) the real data scenario, (2) addition of genotypes of sires and maternal grandsires of the ungenotyped individuals, and (3) addition of one, two, or four genotyped offspring of the ungenotyped individuals to the reference population. Results The imputation accuracy using AlphaImpute in its standard settings was lower than without phasing. Including genotypes of sires and maternal grandsires in the reference population improved imputation accuracy, i.e. the correlation of the true genotypes with the imputed genotype dosages, corrected for mean gene content, across all animals increased from 0.47 (real situation) to 0.60. Including one, two and four genotyped offspring increased the accuracy of imputation across all animals from 0.57 (no offspring) to 0.73, 0.82, and 0.92, respectively. Conclusions At present, the use of basic inheritance rules and segregation analysis appears to be the best imputation method for ungenotyped individuals. Comparison of our empirical animal-specific imputation accuracies to predictions based on selection index theory suggested that not correcting for mean gene content considerably overestimates the true accuracy. Imputation of ungenotyped individuals can help to include valuable phenotypes for genome-wide association studies or for genomic prediction, especially when the ungenotyped individuals have genotyped offspring

Estimating genetic diversity across the neutral genome with the use of dense marker maps

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>With the advent of high throughput DNA typing, dense marker maps have become available to investigate genetic diversity on specific regions of the genome. The aim of this paper was to compare two marker based estimates of the genetic diversity in specific genomic regions lying in between markers: IBD-based genetic diversity and heterozygosity.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A computer simulated population was set up with individuals containing a single 1-Morgan chromosome and 1665 SNP markers and from this one, an additional population was produced with a lower marker density i.e. 166 SNP markers. For each marker interval based on adjacent markers, the genetic diversity was estimated either by IBD probabilities or heterozygosity. Estimates were compared to each other and to the true genetic diversity. The latter was calculated for a marker in the middle of each marker interval that was not used to estimate genetic diversity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The simulated population had an average minor allele frequency of 0.28 and an LD (r²) of 0.26, comparable to those of real livestock populations. Genetic diversities estimated by IBD probabilities and by heterozygosity were positively correlated, and correlations with the true genetic diversity were quite similar for the simulated population with a high marker density, both for specific regions (r = 0.19-0.20) and large regions (r = 0.61-0.64) over the genome. For the population with a lower marker density, the correlation with the true genetic diversity turned out to be higher for the IBD-based genetic diversity.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Genetic diversities of ungenotyped regions of the genome (i.e. between markers) estimated by IBD-based methods and heterozygosity give similar results for the simulated population with a high marker density. However, for a population with a lower marker density, the IBD-based method gives a better prediction, since variation and recombination between markers are missed with heterozygosity.</p

Sensitivity of methods for estimating breeding values using genetic markers to the number of QTL and distribution of QTL variance

The objective of this simulation study was to compare the effect of the number of QTL and distribution of QTL variance on the accuracy of breeding values estimated with genomewide markers (MEBV). Three distinct methods were used to calculate MEBV: a Bayesian Method (BM), Least Angle Regression (LARS) and Partial Least Square Regression (PLSR). The accuracy of MEBV calculated with BM and LARS decreased when the number of simulated QTL increased. The accuracy decreased more when QTL had different variance values than when all QTL had an equal variance. The accuracy of MEBV calculated with PLSR was affected neither by the number of QTL nor by the distribution of QTL variance. Additional simulations and analyses showed that these conclusions were not affected by the number of individuals in the training population, by the number of markers and by the heritability of the trait. Results of this study show that the effect of the number of QTL and distribution of QTL variance on the accuracy of MEBV depends on the method that is used to calculate MEBV

Effects of the number of markers per haplotype and clustering of haplotypes on the accuracy of QTL mapping and prediction of genomic breeding values

The aim of this paper was to compare the effect of haplotype definition on the precision of QTL-mapping and on the accuracy of predicted genomic breeding values. In a multiple QTL model using identity-by-descent (IBD) probabilities between haplotypes, various haplotype definitions were tested i.e. including 2, 6, 12 or 20 marker alleles and clustering base haplotypes related with an IBD probability of > 0.55, 0.75 or 0.95. Simulated data contained 1100 animals with known genotypes and phenotypes and 1000 animals with known genotypes and unknown phenotypes. Genomes comprising 3 Morgan were simulated and contained 74 polymorphic QTL and 383 polymorphic SNP markers with an average r2 value of 0.14 between adjacent markers. The total number of haplotypes decreased up to 50% when the window size was increased from two to 20 markers and decreased by at least 50% when haplotypes related with an IBD probability of > 0.55 instead of > 0.95 were clustered. An intermediate window size led to more precise QTL mapping. Window size and clustering had a limited effect on the accuracy of predicted total breeding values, ranging from 0.79 to 0.81. Our conclusion is that different optimal window sizes should be used in QTL-mapping versus genome-wide breeding value prediction

Identification of Mendelian inconsistencies between SNP and pedigree information of sibs

Background Using SNP genotypes to apply genomic selection in breeding programs is becoming common practice. Tools to edit and check the quality of genotype data are required. Checking for Mendelian inconsistencies makes it possible to identify animals for which pedigree information and genotype information are not in agreement. Methods Straightforward tests to detect Mendelian inconsistencies exist that count the number of opposing homozygous marker (e.g. SNP) genotypes between parent and offspring (PAR-OFF). Here, we develop two tests to identify Mendelian inconsistencies between sibs. The first test counts SNP with opposing homozygous genotypes between sib pairs (SIBCOUNT). The second test compares pedigree and SNP-based relationships (SIBREL). All tests iteratively remove animals based on decreasing numbers of inconsistent parents and offspring or sibs. The PAR-OFF test, followed by either SIB test, was applied to a dataset comprising 2,078 genotyped cows and 211 genotyped sires. Theoretical expectations for distributions of test statistics of all three tests were calculated and compared to empirically derived values. Type I and II error rates were calculated after applying the tests to the edited data, while Mendelian inconsistencies were introduced by permuting pedigree against genotype data for various proportions of animals. Results Both SIB tests identified animal pairs for which pedigree and genomic relationships could be considered as inconsistent by visual inspection of a scatter plot of pairwise pedigree and SNP-based relationships. After removal of 235 animals with the PAR-OFF test, SIBCOUNT (SIBREL) identified 18 (22) additional inconsistent animals. Seventeen animals were identified by both methods. The numbers of incorrectly deleted animals (Type I error), were equally low for both methods, while the numbers of incorrectly non-deleted animals (Type II error), were considerably higher for SIBREL compared to SIBCOUNT. Conclusions Tests to remove Mendelian inconsistencies between sibs should be preceded by a test for parent-offspring inconsistencies. This parent-offspring test should not only consider parent-offspring pairs based on pedigree data, but also those based on SNP information. Both SIB tests could identify pairs of sibs with Mendelian inconsistencies. Based on type I and II error rates, counting opposing homozygotes between sibs (SIBCOUNT) appears slightly more precise than comparing genomic and pedigree relationships (SIBREL) to detect Mendelian inconsistencies between sib