Pre-selection against a lethal recessive allele in breeding schemes with optimum-contribution selection or truncation selection

publishedVersio

Controlling Coancestry and Thereby Future Inbreeding by Optimum-Contribution Selection Using Alternative Genomic-Relationship Matrices

We tested the consequences of using alternative genomic relationship matrices to predict genomic breeding values (GEBVs) and control of coancestry in optimum contribution selection, where the relationship matrix used to calculate GEBVs was not necessarily the same as that used to control coancestry. A stochastic simulation study was carried out to investigate genetic gain and true genomic inbreeding in breeding schemes that applied genomic optimum contribution selection (GOCS) with different genomic relationship matrices. Three genomic-relationship matrices were used to predict the GEBVs based on three information sources: markers (GM), QTL (GQ), and markers and QTL (GA). Strictly, GQ is not possible to implement in practice since we do not know the quantitative trait loci (QTL) positions, but more and more information is becoming available especially about the largest QTL. Two genomic-relationship matrices were used to control coancestry: GM and GA. Three genetic architectures were simulated: with 7702, 1000, and 500 QTLs together with 54,218 markers. Selection was for a single trait with heritability 0.2. All selection candidates were phenotyped and genotyped before selection. With 7702 QTL, there were no significant differences in rates of genetic gain at the same rate of true inbreeding using different genomic relationship matrices in GOCS. However, as the number of QTLs was reduced to 1000, prediction of GEBVs using a genomic relationship matrix constructed based on GQ and control of coancestry using GM realized 29.7% higher genetic gain than using GM for both prediction and control of coancestry. Forty-three percent of this increased rate of genetic gain was due to increased accuracies of GEBVs. These findings indicate that with large numbers of QTL, it is not critical what information, i.e., markers or QTL, is used to construct genomic-relationship matrices. However, it becomes critical with small numbers of QTL. This highlights the importance of using genomic-relationship matrices that focus on QTL regions for GEBV estimation when the number of QTL is small in GOCS. Relationships used to control coancestry are preferably based on marker data.publishedVersio

Controlling Coancestry and Thereby Future Inbreeding by Optimum-Contribution Selection Using Alternative Genomic-Relationship Matrices

We tested the consequences of using alternative genomic relationship matrices to predict genomic breeding values (GEBVs) and control of coancestry in optimum contribution selection, where the relationship matrix used to calculate GEBVs was not necessarily the same as that used to control coancestry. A stochastic simulation study was carried out to investigate genetic gain and true genomic inbreeding in breeding schemes that applied genomic optimum contribution selection (GOCS) with different genomic relationship matrices. Three genomic-relationship matrices were used to predict the GEBVs based on three information sources: markers (GM), QTL (GQ), and markers and QTL (GA). Strictly, GQ is not possible to implement in practice since we do not know the quantitative trait loci (QTL) positions, but more and more information is becoming available especially about the largest QTL. Two genomic-relationship matrices were used to control coancestry: GM and GA. Three genetic architectures were simulated: with 7702, 1000, and 500 QTLs together with 54,218 markers. Selection was for a single trait with heritability 0.2. All selection candidates were phenotyped and genotyped before selection. With 7702 QTL, there were no significant differences in rates of genetic gain at the same rate of true inbreeding using different genomic relationship matrices in GOCS. However, as the number of QTLs was reduced to 1000, prediction of GEBVs using a genomic relationship matrix constructed based on GQ and control of coancestry using GM realized 29.7% higher genetic gain than using GM for both prediction and control of coancestry. Forty-three percent of this increased rate of genetic gain was due to increased accuracies of GEBVs. These findings indicate that with large numbers of QTL, it is not critical what information, i.e., markers or QTL, is used to construct genomic-relationship matrices. However, it becomes critical with small numbers of QTL. This highlights the importance of using genomic-relationship matrices that focus on QTL regions for GEBV estimation when the number of QTL is small in GOCS. Relationships used to control coancestry are preferably based on marker data

Pre-selection against a lethal recessive allele in breeding schemes with optimum-contribution selection or truncation selection

Abstract Background We tested the hypothesis that breeding schemes with a pre-selection step, in which carriers of a lethal recessive allele (LRA) were culled, and with optimum-contribution selection (OCS) reduce the frequency of a LRA, control rate of inbreeding, and realise as much genetic gain as breeding schemes without a pre-selection step. Methods We used stochastic simulation to estimate true genetic gain realised at a 0.01 rate of true inbreeding (ΔFtrue) by breeding schemes that combined one of four pre-selection strategies with one of three selection strategies. The four pre-selection strategies were: (1) no carriers culled, (2) male carriers culled, (3) female carriers culled, and (4) all carriers culled. Carrier-status was known prior to selection. The three selection strategies were: (1) OCS in which $$\Delta {\text{F}}_{{{\text{true}}}}$$ Δ F true was predicted and controlled using pedigree relationships (POCS), (2) OCS in which $$\Delta {\text{F}}_{{{\text{true}}}}$$ Δ F true was predicted and controlled using genomic relationships (GOCS), and (3) truncation selection of parents. All combinations of pre-selection strategies and selection strategies were tested for three starting frequencies of the LRA (0.05, 0.10, and 0.15) and two linkage statuses with the locus that has the LRA being on a chromosome with or without loci affecting the breeding goal trait. The breeding schemes were simulated for 10 discrete generations (t = 1, …, 10). In all breeding schemes, ΔFtrue was calibrated to be 0.01 per generation in generations t = 4, …, 10. Each breeding scheme was replicated 100 times. Results We found no significant difference in true genetic gain from generations t = 4, …, 10 between breeding schemes with or without pre-selection within selection strategy. POCS and GOCS schemes realised similar true genetic gains from generations t = 4, …, 10. POCS and GOCS schemes realised 12% more true genetic gain from generations t = 4, …, 10 than truncation selection schemes. Conclusions We advocate for OCS schemes with pre-selection against the LRA that cause animal suffering and high costs. At LRA frequencies of 0.10 or lower, OCS schemes in which male carriers are culled reduce the frequency of LRA, control rate of inbreeding, and realise no significant reduction in true genetic gain compared to OCS schemes without pre-selection against LRA

Pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships

International audienceAbstractBackgroundWe tested the premise that optimum-contribution selection with pedigree relationships to control inbreeding (POCS) realises at least as much true genetic gain as optimum-contribution selection with genomic relationships (GOCS) at the same rate of true inbreeding.MethodsWe used stochastic simulation to estimate rates of true genetic gain realised by POCS and GOCS at a 0.01 rate of true inbreeding in three breeding schemes with best linear unbiased predictions of breeding values based on pedigree (PBLUP) and genomic (GBLUP) information. The three breeding schemes differed in number of matings and litter size. Selection was for a single trait with a heritability of 0.2. The trait was controlled by 7702 biallelic quantitative-trait loci (QTL) that were distributed across a 30-M genome. The genome contained 54,218 biallelic markers that were used in GOCS and GBLUP. A total of 6012 identity-by-descent loci were placed across the genome in base populations. Unique alleles at these loci were used to calculate rates of true inbreeding. Breeding schemes were run for 10 discrete generations. Selection candidates were genotyped and phenotyped before selection.ResultsPOCS realised more true genetic gain than GOCS at a 0.01 rate of true inbreeding in all combinations of breeding scheme and prediction method. POCS realised 14 to 33% more true genetic gain than GOCS with PBLUP in the three breeding schemes. It realised 1.5 to 5.7% more true genetic gain than GOCS with GBLUP.ConclusionsPOCS realised more true genetic gain than GOCS because it managed expected genetic drift without restricting selection at QTL. By contrast, GOCS penalised changes in allele frequencies at markers that were generated by genetic drift and selection. Because these marker alleles were in linkage disequilibrium with QTL alleles, GOCS restricted changes in allele frequencies at QTL. This provides little incentive to use GOCS and highlights that we have more to learn before we can control inbreeding using genomic relationships in selective-breeding schemes. Until we can do so, POCS remains a worthy method of optimum-contribution selection because it realises more true genetic gain than GOCS at the same rate of true inbreeding