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

publishedVersio

Deregressed EBV as the response variable yield more reliable genomic predictions than traditional EBV in pure-bred pigs

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Genomic selection can be implemented by a multi-step procedure, which requires a response variable and a statistical method. For pure-bred pigs, it was hypothesised that deregressed estimated breeding values (EBV) with the parent average removed as the response variable generate higher reliabilities of genomic breeding values than EBV, and that the normal, thick-tailed and mixture-distribution models yield similar reliabilities.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Reliabilities of genomic breeding values were estimated with EBV and deregressed EBV as response variables and under the three statistical methods, genomic BLUP, Bayesian Lasso and MIXTURE. The methods were examined by splitting data into a reference data set of 1375 genotyped animals that were performance tested before October 2008, and 536 genotyped validation animals that were performance tested after October 2008. The traits examined were daily gain and feed conversion ratio.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Using deregressed EBV as the response variable yielded 18 to 39% higher reliabilities of the genomic breeding values than using EBV as the response variable. For daily gain, the increase in reliability due to deregression was significant and approximately 35%, whereas for feed conversion ratio it ranged between 18 and 39% and was significant only when MIXTURE was used. Genomic BLUP, Bayesian Lasso and MIXTURE had similar reliabilities.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Deregressed EBV is the preferred response variable, whereas the choice of statistical method is less critical for pure-bred pigs. The increase of 18 to 39% in reliability is worthwhile, since the reliabilities of the genomic breeding values directly affect the returns from genomic selection.</p

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

A review on breeding and reproduction of European aquaculture species : rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

A species review for the AquaBreeding Eu-platform for Aquaculture developmentvokBEL/BG

Estimating additive and non-additive genetic variances and predicting genetic merits using genome-wide dense single nucleotide polymorphism markers.

Non-additive genetic variation is usually ignored when genome-wide markers are used to study the genetic architecture and genomic prediction of complex traits in human, wild life, model organisms or farm animals. However, non-additive genetic effects may have an important contribution to total genetic variation of complex traits. This study presented a genomic BLUP model including additive and non-additive genetic effects, in which additive and non-additive genetic relation matrices were constructed from information of genome-wide dense single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. In addition, this study for the first time proposed a method to construct dominance relationship matrix using SNP markers and demonstrated it in detail. The proposed model was implemented to investigate the amounts of additive genetic, dominance and epistatic variations, and assessed the accuracy and unbiasedness of genomic predictions for daily gain in pigs. In the analysis of daily gain, four linear models were used: 1) a simple additive genetic model (MA), 2) a model including both additive and additive by additive epistatic genetic effects (MAE), 3) a model including both additive and dominance genetic effects (MAD), and 4) a full model including all three genetic components (MAED). Estimates of narrow-sense heritability were 0.397, 0.373, 0.379 and 0.357 for models MA, MAE, MAD and MAED, respectively. Estimated dominance variance and additive by additive epistatic variance accounted for 5.6% and 9.5% of the total phenotypic variance, respectively. Based on model MAED, the estimate of broad-sense heritability was 0.506. Reliabilities of genomic predicted breeding values for the animals without performance records were 28.5%, 28.8%, 29.2% and 29.5% for models MA, MAE, MAD and MAED, respectively. In addition, models including non-additive genetic effects improved unbiasedness of genomic predictions

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

Most of the long-term genetic gain from optimum-contribution selection can be realised with restrictions imposed during optimisation

International audienceAbstractBackgroundWe tested the hypothesis that optimum-contribution selection (OCS) with restrictions imposed during optimisation realises most of the long-term genetic gain realised by OCS without restrictions.MethodsWe used stochastic simulation to estimate long-term rates of genetic gain realised by breeding schemes that applied OCS without and with restrictions imposed during optimisation, where long-term refers to generations 23 to 25 (approximately). Six restrictions were imposed. Five of these removed solutions from the solution space. The sixth removed records of selection decisions made at earlier selection times. We also simulated a conventional breeding scheme with truncation selection as a reference point. Generations overlapped, selection was for a single trait, and the trait was observed for all selection candidates prior to selection.ResultsOCS with restrictions realised 67 to 99% of the additional gain realised by OCS without restrictions, where additional gain was the difference in the long-term rates of genetic gain realised by OCS without restrictions and our reference point with truncation selection. The only exceptions were those restrictions that removed all solutions near the optimum solution from the solution space and the restriction that removed records of selection decisions made at earlier selection times. Imposing these restrictions realised only −12 to 46% of the additional gain.ConclusionsMost of the long-term genetic gain realised by OCS without restrictions can be realised by OCS with restrictions imposed during optimisation, provided the restrictions do not remove all solutions near the optimum from the solution space and do not remove records of earlier selection decisions. In breeding schemes where OCS cannot be applied optimally because of biological and logistical restrictions, OCS with restrictions provides a useful alternative. Not only does it realise most of the long-term genetic gain, OCS with restrictions enables OCS to be tailored to individual breeding schemes