Comparison of accuracy of breeding value for cow from three methods in Hanwoo (Korean cattle) population
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In Korea, Korea Proven Bulls (KPN) program has been well-developed. Breeding and evaluation of cows are also an essential factor to increase earnings and genetic gain. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of cow breeding value by using three methods (pedigree index [PI], pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction [PBLUP], and genomic-BLUP [GBLUP]). The reference population (n = 16,971) was used to estimate breeding values for 481 females as a test population. The accuracy of GBLUP was 0.63, 0.66, 0.62 and 0.63 for carcass weight (CWT), eye muscle area (EMA), back-fat thickness (BFT), and marbling score (MS), respectively. As for the PBLUP method, accuracy of prediction was 0.43 for CWT, 0.45 for EMA, 0.43 for MS, and 0.44 for BFT. Accuracy of PI method was the lowest (0.28 to 0.29 for carcass traits). The increase by approximate 20% in accuracy of GBLUP method than other methods could be because genomic information may explain Mendelian sampling error that pedigree information cannot detect. Bias can cause reducing accuracy of estimated breeding value (EBV) for selected animals. Regression coefficient between true breeding value (TBV) and GBLUP EBV, PBLUP EBV, and PI EBV were 0.78, 0.625, and 0.35, respectively for CWT. This showed that genomic EBV (GEBV) is less biased than PBLUP and PI EBV in this study. In addition, number of effective chromosome segments (Me) statistic that indicates the independent loci is one of the important factors affecting the accuracy of BLUP. The correlation between Me and the accuracy of GBLUP is related to the genetic relationship between reference and test population. The correlations between Me and accuracy were −0.74 in CWT, −0.75 in EMA, −0.73 in MS, and −0.75 in BF, which were strongly negative. These results proved that the estimation of genetic ability using genomic data is the most effective, and the smaller the Me, the higher the accuracy of EBV.
Abstract
In Korea, Korea Proven Bulls (KPN) program has been well-developed. Breeding and evaluation of cows are also an essential factor to increase earnings and genetic gain. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of cow breeding value by using three methods (pedigree index [PI], pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction [PBLUP], and genomic-BLUP [GBLUP]). The reference population (n = 16,971) was used to estimate breeding values for 481 females as a test population. The accuracy of GBLUP was 0.63, 0.66, 0.62 and 0.63 for carcass weight (CWT), eye muscle area (EMA), back-fat thickness (BFT), and marbling score (MS), respectively. As for the PBLUP method, accuracy of prediction was 0.43 for CWT, 0.45 for EMA, 0.43 for MS, and 0.44 for BFT. Accuracy of PI method was the lowest (0.28 to 0.29 for carcass traits). The increase by approximate 20% in accuracy of GBLUP method than other methods could be because genomic information may explain Mendelian sampling error that pedigree information cannot detect. Bias can cause reducing accuracy of estimated breeding value (EBV) for selected animals. Regression coefficient between true breeding value (TBV) and GBLUP EBV, PBLUP EBV, and PI EBV were 0.78, 0.625, and 0.35, respectively for CWT. This showed that genomic EBV (GEBV) is less biased than PBLUP and PI EBV in this study. In addition, number of effective chromosome segments (Me) statistic that indicates the independent loci is one of the important factors affecting the accuracy of BLUP. The correlation between Me and the accuracy of GBLUP is related to the genetic relationship between reference and test population. The correlations between Me and accuracy were −0.74 in CWT, −0.75 in EMA, −0.73 in MS, and −0.75 in BF, which were strongly negative. These results proved that the estimation of genetic ability using genomic data is the most effective, and the smaller the Me, the higher the accuracy of EBV.
참고문헌 (37)
- Ki Yong Chung, "Current situation and future prospects for beef production in South Korea — A review", Animal Bioscience, 31(7), pp.951~960 (2018), 아세아·태평양축산학회[DOI]
- B. Park, "National Genetic Evaluation (System) of Hanwoo (Korean Native Cattle)", Animal Bioscience, 26(2), pp.151~156 (2013), 아세아·태평양축산학회[DOI]
- Peak BH, "Overview of beef cattle(Hanwoo)production in Korea", Proceedings of 2nd Korea-US-Japan International Joint Symposium (2007)
- Sun C, "Comparison between a sire model and an animal model for genetic evaluation of fertility traits in Danish Holstein population", J Dairy Sci, 92, pp.4063~4071 (2009)[DOI]
- Mehrban H, "Comparison of conventional BLUP and single-step genomic BLUP evaluations for yearling weight and carcass traits in Hanwoo beef cattle using single trait and multi-trait models", PLOS ONE, 14, pp.e0223352~ (2019)[DOI]
- Nwogwugwu Chiemela Peter, "Effect of errors in pedigree on the accuracy of estimated breeding value for carcass traits in Korean Hanwoo cattle", Animal Bioscience, 33(7), pp.1057~1067 (2020), 아세아·태평양축산학회[DOI]
- Henderson CR, "Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model", Biometrics, 31, pp.423~447 (1975)[DOI]
- Meuwissen THE, "Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps", Genetics, 157, pp.1819~1829 (2001)[DOI]
- Misztal I, "Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information", J Dairy Sci, 92, pp.4648~4655 (2009)[DOI]
- Chen L, "Accuracy of predicting genomic breeding values for residual feed intake in Angus and Charolais beef cattle", J Anim Sci, 91, pp.4669~4678 (2013)[DOI]
- Wolc A, "Breeding value prediction for production traits in layer chickens using pedigree or genomic relationships in a reduced animal model", Genet Sel Evol, 43, pp.5~ (2011)[DOI]
- Nwogwugwu Chiemela Peter, "Optimal population size to detect quantitative trait loci in Korean native chicken: a simulation study", Animal Bioscience, 35(4), pp.511~516 (2022), 아세아·태평양축산학회[DOI]
- Purcell S, "PLINK : a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses", Am J Hum Genet, 81, pp.559~575 (2007)[DOI]
- Oldenbroek K, "Textbook animal breeding: animal breeding and genetics for BSc students" (2014), Centre for Genetic Resources and Animal Breeding and Genomics Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre
- Misztal I, "BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90)", Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetic Applied to Livestock Production (2002)
- Manual for BLUPF90family of programs, "Misztal I", University of Georgia, ~ (2014)
- Lee J, "Comparison of alternative approaches to single-trait genomic prediction using genotyped and non-genotyped Hanwoo beef cattle", Genet Sel Evol, 49, pp.2~ (2017)[DOI]
- VanRaden PM, "Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions", J Dairy Sci, 91, pp.4414~4423 (2008)[DOI]
- Marjanovic J, "Factors affecting accuracy of estimated effective number of chromosome segments for numerically small breeds", J Anim Breed Genet, 138, pp.151~160 (2021)[DOI]
- Goddard ME, "Using the genomic relationship matrix to predict the accuracy of genomic selection", J Anim Breed Genet, 128, pp.409~421 (2011)[DOI]
- Martini JWR, "Epistasis and covariance : how gene interaction translates into genomic relationship", Theor Appl Genet, 129, pp.963~976 (2016)[DOI]
- Jibrila I, "Investigating the impact of preselection on subsequent single-step genomic BLUP evaluation of preselected animals", Genet Sel Evol, 52, pp.42~ (2020)[DOI]
- Misztal I, "Approximation of prediction error variance in large-scale animal models", J Dairy Sci, 71, pp.27~32 (1988)[DOI]
- Harris B, "Approximate reliability of genetic evaluations under an animal model", J Dairy Sci, 81, pp.2723~2728 (1998)[DOI]
- Mrode R, "Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values" (2014), CABI
- Naserkheil M, "Improving the accuracy of genomic evaluation for linear body measurement traits using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction in Hanwoo beef cattle", BMC Genet, 21, pp.144~ (2020)[DOI]
- Kim EH, "Estimation of breeding value and accuracy using pedigree and genotype of Hanwoo cows(Korean cattle)", J Anim Breed Genet, 139, pp.281~291 (2022)[DOI]
- Bangera R, "Genomic predictions can accelerate selection for resistance against Piscirickettsia salmonis in Atlantic salmon(Salmo salar)", BMC Genomics, 18, pp.121~ (2017)[DOI]
- Clark SA, "The importance of information on relatives for the prediction of genomic breeding values and the implications for the makeup of reference data sets in livestock breeding schemes", Genet Sel Evol, 44, pp.4~ (2012)[DOI]
- Hayes BJ, "Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix", Genet Res, 91, pp.47~60 (2009)[DOI]
- Habier D, "The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values", Genetics, 177, pp.2389~2397 (2007)[DOI]
- Habier D, "The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle", Genet Sel Evol, 42, pp.5~ (2010)[DOI]
- Daetwyler HD, "Inbreeding in genome-wide selection", J Anim Breed Genet, 124, pp.369~376 (2007)[DOI]
- Lee SH, "Estimation of genomic prediction accuracy from reference populations with varying degrees of relationship", PLOS ONE, 12, pp.e0189775~ (2017)[DOI]
- Zhang X, "Weighting strategies for single-step genomic BLUP : an iterative approach for accurate calculation of GEBV and GWAS", Front Genet, 7, pp.151~ (2016)[DOI]
- Daetwyler HD, "The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods", Genetics, 185, pp.1021~1031 (2010)[DOI]
- Clark SA, "Different models of genetic variation and their effect on genomic evaluation", Genet Sel Evol, 43, pp.18~ (2011)[DOI]
