본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

Assessment of genomic prediction accuracy using different selection and evaluation approaches in a simulated Korean beef cattle population

2

조회

0

다운로드

2

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

초록

Objective: This study assessed genomic prediction accuracies based on different selection methods, evaluation procedures, training population (TP) sizes, heritability (h2) levels, marker densities and pedigree error (PE) rates in a simulated Korean beef cattle population. Methods: A simulation was performed using two different selection methods, phenotypic and estimated breeding value (EBV), with an h2 of 0.1, 0.3, or 0.5 and marker densities of 10, 50, or 777K. A total of 275 males and 2,475 females were randomly selected from the last generation to simulate ten recent generations. The simulation of the PE dataset was modified using only the EBV method of selection with a marker density of 50K and a heritability of 0.3. The proportions of errors substituted were 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%, respectively. Genetic evaluations were performed using genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) with different weighted values. The accuracies of the predictions were determined. Results: Compared with phenotypic selection, the results revealed that the prediction accuracies obtained using GBLUP and ssGBLUP increased across heritability levels and TP sizes during EBV selection. However, an increase in the marker density did not yield higher accuracy in either method except when the h2 was 0.3 under the EBV selection method. Based on EBV selection with a heritability of 0.1 and a marker density of 10K, GBLUP and ssGBLUP_0.95 prediction accuracy was higher than that obtained by phenotypic selection. The prediction accuracies from ssGBLUP_0.95 outperformed those from the GBLUP method across all scenarios. When errors were introduced into the pedigree dataset, the prediction accuracies were only minimally influenced across all scenarios. Conclusion: Our study suggests that the use of ssGBLUP_0.95, EBV selection, and low marker density could help improve genetic gains in beef cattle.

Abstract

Objective: This study assessed genomic prediction accuracies based on different selection methods, evaluation procedures, training population (TP) sizes, heritability (h2) levels, marker densities and pedigree error (PE) rates in a simulated Korean beef cattle population. Methods: A simulation was performed using two different selection methods, phenotypic and estimated breeding value (EBV), with an h2 of 0.1, 0.3, or 0.5 and marker densities of 10, 50, or 777K. A total of 275 males and 2,475 females were randomly selected from the last generation to simulate ten recent generations. The simulation of the PE dataset was modified using only the EBV method of selection with a marker density of 50K and a heritability of 0.3. The proportions of errors substituted were 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%, respectively. Genetic evaluations were performed using genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) with different weighted values. The accuracies of the predictions were determined. Results: Compared with phenotypic selection, the results revealed that the prediction accuracies obtained using GBLUP and ssGBLUP increased across heritability levels and TP sizes during EBV selection. However, an increase in the marker density did not yield higher accuracy in either method except when the h2 was 0.3 under the EBV selection method. Based on EBV selection with a heritability of 0.1 and a marker density of 10K, GBLUP and ssGBLUP_0.95 prediction accuracy was higher than that obtained by phenotypic selection. The prediction accuracies from ssGBLUP_0.95 outperformed those from the GBLUP method across all scenarios. When errors were introduced into the pedigree dataset, the prediction accuracies were only minimally influenced across all scenarios. Conclusion: Our study suggests that the use of ssGBLUP_0.95, EBV selection, and low marker density could help improve genetic gains in beef cattle.

참고문헌 (39)

  1. Henderson CR, "Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model", Biometrics, 31, pp.423~447 (1975)
  2. Hayes BJ, "Invited review : Genomic selection in dairy cattle : progress and challenges", J Dairy Sci, 92, pp.433~443 (2009)[DOI]
  3. Van der Werf J, "Genetic evaluation and breeding program design", pp.1~17 (2015), University of New England
  4. VanRaden PM, "Invited review : Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls", J Dairy Sci, 92, pp.16~24 (2009)[DOI]
  5. Meuwissen T, "Genomic selection : a paradigm shift in animal breeding", Anim Front, 6, pp.6~14 (2016)[DOI]
  6. Calus MPL, "Genomic breeding value prediction : methods and procedures", Animal, 4, pp.157~164 (2010)[DOI]
  7. Gao H, "Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single-step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population", Genet Sel Evol, 44, pp.8~ (2012)[DOI]
  8. Meuwissen THE, "Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps", Genetics, 157, pp.1819~1829 (2001)
  9. Solberg TR, "Genomic selection using different marker types and densities", J Anim Sci, 86, pp.2447~2454 (2008)[DOI]
  10. 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]
  11. VanRaden PM, "Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions", J Dairy Sci, 91, pp.4414~4423 (2008)[DOI]
  12. Habier D, "The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values", Genetics, 177, pp.2389~2397 (2007)[DOI]
  13. Legarra A, "A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information", J Dairy Sci, 92, pp.4656~4663 (2009)[DOI]
  14. Christensen OF, "Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped", Genet Sel Evol, 42, pp.2~ (2010)[DOI]
  15. Piccoli ML, "A comprehensive comparison between single-and two-step GBLUP methods in a simulated beef cattle population", Can J Anim Sci, 98, pp.565~575 (2018)[DOI]
  16. Song CW, "The Korean Hanwoo beef cattle", Anim Genet Resour, 14, pp.61~71 (1994)[DOI]
  17. Onogi A, "Genomic prediction in Japanese Black cattle : application of a single-step approach to beef cattle", J Anim Sci, 92, pp.1931~1938 (2014)[DOI]
  18. Legarra A, "Single step, a general approach for genomic selection", Livest Sci, 166, pp.54~65 (2014)[DOI]
  19. Rogers AR, "Ancestral alleles and population origins : inferences depend on mutation rate", Mol Biol Evol, 24, pp.990~997 (2007)[DOI]
  20. Kizilkaya K, "Genomic prediction of simulated multibreed and purebred performance using observed fifty thousand single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes", J Anim Sci, 88, pp.544~551 (2013)[DOI]
  21. Brito FV, "Accuracy of genomic selection in simulated populations mimicking the extent of linkage disequilibrium in beef cattle", BMC Genet, 12, pp.80~ (2011)[DOI]
  22. Sargolzaei M, "QMSim : A large-scale genome simulator for livestock", Bioinformatics, 25, pp.680~681 (2009)[DOI]
  23. Oliehoek PA, "Effects of pedigree errors on the efficiency of conservation decisions", Genet Select Evol, 41, pp.9~ (2009)[DOI]
  24. Legarra A, "GS3: genomic selection, gibbs sampling, gauss seidel (and BayesCπ)" (2014), INRA
  25. Christensen OF, "Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped", Genet Sel Evol, 42, pp.2~ (2010)[DOI]
  26. Abdalla EEA, "Single-step methodology for genomic evaluation in Turkeys(Meleagris gallopavo)", Front Genet, 10, pp.1248~ (2019)[DOI]
  27. Misztal I, "BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90)", Proceeding of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (2002)
  28. Misztal I, "Approximation of prediction error variance in large-scale animal models", J Dairy Sci, 71, pp.27~32 (1988)[DOI]
  29. Gowane GR, "Effect of selection on bias and accuracy in genomic prediction of breeding values", pp.298042~ (2018)[DOI]
  30. Kolbehdari D, "Estimation of genome-wide haplotype effects in half-sib designs", J Anim Breed Genet, 124, pp.356~361 (2007)[DOI]
  31. Zhu B, "Effects of marker density and minor allele frequency on genomic prediction for growth traits in Chinese Simmental beef cattle", J Integr Agric, 16, pp.911~920 (2017)[DOI]
  32. Muir WM, "Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP‐estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters", J Anim Breed Genet, 124, pp.342~355 (2007)[DOI]
  33. "Understanding estimated breeding values" (2016)[URL]
  34. Vitezica ZG, "One-step vs. multi-step methods for genomic prediction in presence of selection", Proceedings of the World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Volume genetic improvement programmes: selection using molecular information - lecture sessions (2010)
  35. 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]
  36. Goddard M, "Genomic selection", J Anim Breed Genet, 124, pp.323~330 (2007)
  37. Erbe M, "Improving accuracy of genomic predictions within and between dairy cattle breeds with imputed high-density single nucleotide polymorphism panels", J Dairy Sci, 95, pp.4114~4129 (2012)[DOI]
  38. Wang Q, "Effects of marker density and population structure on the genomic prediction accuracy for growth trait in Pacific white shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei", BMC Genet, 18, pp.45~ (2017)[DOI]
  39. Israel C, "Effect of misidentification on genetic gain and estimation of breeding value in dairy cattle populations", J Dairy Sci, 83, pp.181~187 (2000)[DOI]

관련 논문AI추천

Genomic selection through single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction improves the accuracy of evaluation in Hanwoo cattle김시동, 이성수, 이승환, Alam Mahboob, Park Byoungho, Park Mi Na아세아·태평양축산학회 · Animal Bioscience2020 · 제33권 제10호Comparison on genomic prediction using pedigree BLUP and single step GBLUP through the Hanwoo full-sib family이두호, 이승환, Kang Ho-Chan, Kim Eun-Ho, Kim Ji-Yeong, Lim Hyun-Tae, Myung Cheol-Hyun, Sun Du-Won아세아·태평양축산학회 · Animal Bioscience2023 · 제36권 제9호Comparison of accuracy of breeding value for cow from three methods in Hanwoo (Korean cattle) population이승환, ChangHee Do, Dong Jae Lee, Dongwon Seo, Doo Ho Lee, Du-Hak Yoon, Hyo Sang Lee, Kil Hwan Lee, Phuong Thanh N. Dinh, Waruni Ekanayake, Yang Mo Koo, Yeong Kuk Kim한국축산학회 · 한국축산학회지2023 · 제65권 제4호Accuracy of genomic breeding value prediction for intramuscular fat using different genomic relationship matrices in Hanwoo (Korean cattle)김시동, 김종주, 박병호, 이승환, 임다정, 최태정, Aditi Sharma아세아·태평양축산학회 · Animal Bioscience2017 · 제30권 제7호Effect of errors in pedigree on the accuracy of estimated breeding value for carcass traits in Korean Hanwoo cattle김시동, 김영국, 이승환, 이준헌, 최태정, Chung Yun Ji, Jang Sung Bong, Nwogwugwu Chiemela Peter, Roh Seung Hee아세아·태평양축산학회 · Animal Bioscience2020 · 제33권 제7호The effectiveness of genomic selection for milk production traits of Holstein dairy cattle김종주, 당창권, 조광현, Kyung-Do Park, Mohammad Z. Alam, You-Sam Kim, Yun-Mi Lee아세아·태평양축산학회 · Animal Bioscience2020 · 제33권 제3호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (9건)