Genomic selection through single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction improves the accuracy of evaluation in Hanwoo cattle
2
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objective: Genomic selection (GS) is becoming popular in animals’ genetic development. We, therefore, investigated the single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) as tool for GS, and compared its efficacy with the traditional pedigree BLUP (pedBLUP) method. Methods: A total of 9,952 males born between 1997 and 2018 under Hanwoo proven-bull selection program was studied. We analyzed body weight at 12 months and carcass weight (kg), backfat thickness, eye muscle area, and marbling score traits. About 7,387 bulls were genotyped using Illumina 50K BeadChip Arrays. Multiple-trait animal model analyses were performed using BLUPF90 software programs. Breeding value accuracy was calculated using two methods: i) Pearson’s correlation of genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) with EBV of all animals (rM1) and ii) correlation using inverse of coefficient matrix from the mixed-model equations (rM2). Then, we compared these accuracies by overall population, info-type (PHEN, phenotyped-only; GEN, genotyped-only; and PH+GEN, phenotyped and genotyped), and bull-types (YBULL, young male calves; CBULL, young candidate bulls; and PBULL, proven bulls). Results: The rM1 estimates in the study were between 0.90 and 0.96 among five traits. The rM1 estimates varied slightly by population and info-type, but noticeably by bull-type for traits. Generally average rM2 estimates were much smaller than rM1 (pedBLUP, 0.40 to0.44; ssGBLUP, 0.41 to 0.45) at population level. However, rM2 from both BLUP models varied noticeably across info-types and bull-types. The ssGBLUP estimates of rM2 in PHEN, GEN, and PH+ GEN ranged between 0.51 and 0.63, 0.66 and 0.70, and 0.68 and 0.73, respectively. In YBULL, CBULL, and PBULL, the rM2 estimates ranged between 0.54 and 0.57, 0.55 and 0.62, and 0.70 and 0.74, respectively. The pedBLUP based rM2 estimates were also relatively lower than ssGBLUP estimates. At the population level, we found an increase in accuracy by 2.0% to 4.5% among traits. Traits in PHEN were least influenced by ssGBLUP (0% to 2.0%), whereas the highest positive changes were in GEN (8.1% to 10.7%). PH+GEN also showed 6.5% to 8.5% increase in accuracy by ssGBLUP. However, the highest improvements were found in bull-types (YBULL, 21% to 35.7%; CBULL, 3.3% to 9.3%; PBULL, 2.8% to 6.1%). Conclusion: A noticeable improvement by ssGBLUP was observed in this study. Findings of differential responses to ssGBLUP by various bulls could assist in better selection decision making as well. We, therefore, suggest that ssGBLUP could be used for GS in Hanwoo proven-bull evaluation program.
Abstract
Objective: Genomic selection (GS) is becoming popular in animals’ genetic development. We, therefore, investigated the single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) as tool for GS, and compared its efficacy with the traditional pedigree BLUP (pedBLUP) method. Methods: A total of 9,952 males born between 1997 and 2018 under Hanwoo proven-bull selection program was studied. We analyzed body weight at 12 months and carcass weight (kg), backfat thickness, eye muscle area, and marbling score traits. About 7,387 bulls were genotyped using Illumina 50K BeadChip Arrays. Multiple-trait animal model analyses were performed using BLUPF90 software programs. Breeding value accuracy was calculated using two methods: i) Pearson’s correlation of genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) with EBV of all animals (rM1) and ii) correlation using inverse of coefficient matrix from the mixed-model equations (rM2). Then, we compared these accuracies by overall population, info-type (PHEN, phenotyped-only; GEN, genotyped-only; and PH+GEN, phenotyped and genotyped), and bull-types (YBULL, young male calves; CBULL, young candidate bulls; and PBULL, proven bulls). Results: The rM1 estimates in the study were between 0.90 and 0.96 among five traits. The rM1 estimates varied slightly by population and info-type, but noticeably by bull-type for traits. Generally average rM2 estimates were much smaller than rM1 (pedBLUP, 0.40 to0.44; ssGBLUP, 0.41 to 0.45) at population level. However, rM2 from both BLUP models varied noticeably across info-types and bull-types. The ssGBLUP estimates of rM2 in PHEN, GEN, and PH+ GEN ranged between 0.51 and 0.63, 0.66 and 0.70, and 0.68 and 0.73, respectively. In YBULL, CBULL, and PBULL, the rM2 estimates ranged between 0.54 and 0.57, 0.55 and 0.62, and 0.70 and 0.74, respectively. The pedBLUP based rM2 estimates were also relatively lower than ssGBLUP estimates. At the population level, we found an increase in accuracy by 2.0% to 4.5% among traits. Traits in PHEN were least influenced by ssGBLUP (0% to 2.0%), whereas the highest positive changes were in GEN (8.1% to 10.7%). PH+GEN also showed 6.5% to 8.5% increase in accuracy by ssGBLUP. However, the highest improvements were found in bull-types (YBULL, 21% to 35.7%; CBULL, 3.3% to 9.3%; PBULL, 2.8% to 6.1%). Conclusion: A noticeable improvement by ssGBLUP was observed in this study. Findings of differential responses to ssGBLUP by various bulls could assist in better selection decision making as well. We, therefore, suggest that ssGBLUP could be used for GS in Hanwoo proven-bull evaluation program.
참고문헌 (33)
- VanRaden PM, "Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions", J Dairy Sci, 91, pp.4414~4423 (2008)[DOI]
- VanRaden PM, "Invited review : Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls", J Dairy Sci, 92, pp.16~24 (2009)[DOI]
- Hayes BJ, "Invited review : Genomic selection in dairy cattle : progress and challenges", J Dairy Sci, 92, pp.433~443 (2009)[DOI]
- Aguilar I, "Hot topic : A unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score", J Dairy Sci, 93, pp.743~752 (2010)[DOI]
- Baloche G, "Assessment of accuracy of genomic prediction for French Lacaune dairy sheep", J Dairy Sci, 97, pp.1107~1116 (2014)[DOI]
- Carillier C, "Comparison of joint versus purebred genomic evaluation in the French multi-breed dairy goat population", Genet Sel Evol, 46, pp.67~ (2014)[DOI]
- Cardoso FF, "Genomic prediction for tick resistance in Braford and Hereford cattle", J Anim Sci, 93, pp.2693~2705 (2015)[DOI]
- Kim S, "Breeding initiatives for Hanwoo cattle to thrive as a beef industry– A review study", J Anim Breed Genom, 1, pp.102~124 (2017)[DOI]
- Sargolzaei M, "A new approach for efficient genotype imputation using information from relatives", BMC Genomics, 15, pp.478~ (2014)[DOI]
- Aguilar I, "PREGSF90-POSTGSF90: Computational tools for the implementation of single-step genomic selection and genome-wide association with ungenotyped individuals in BLUPF90 programs", Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (2014)
- Boichard D, "PEDIG: A FORTRAN package for pedigree analysis suited for large populations", 7th world congress on genetics applied to livestock production (2002)
- Sargolzaei M, "CFC: A tool for monitoring genetic diversity", Proceedings of the 8th world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, pp.27~28 (2006), Instituto Prociência
- Henderson CR, "Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model", Biometrics, 31, pp.423~447 (1975)[DOI]
- "Manual for BLUPF90 family of programs" (2015)[URL]
- Weng Z, "Application of imputation methods to genomic selection in Chinese Holstein cattle", J Anim Sci Biotechnol, 3, pp.6~ (2012)[DOI]
- Daetwyler HD, "Genomic prediction in animals and plants : Simulation of data, validation, reporting, and benchmarking", Genetics, 193, pp.347~365 (2013)[DOI]
- Mehrban H, "Predictive performance of genomic selection methods for carcass traits in Hanwoo beef cattle : impacts of the genetic architecture", Genet Sel Evol, 49, pp.1~ (2017)[DOI]
- 신은경, "한우암소의 유전체육종가 추정 및 정확도 분석", 농업생명과학연구, 52(2), pp.91~98 (2018), 농업생명과학연구원[DOI]
- 이승환, "Prediction of genomic breeding values of carcass traits using whole genome SNP data in Hanwoo (Korean cattle)", Korean Journal of Agricultural Science, 39(3), pp.357~364 (2012), 농업과학연구소[DOI]
- B. Park, "National Genetic Evaluation (System) of Hanwoo (Korean Native Cattle)", Animal Bioscience, 26(2), pp.151~156 (2013), 아세아·태평양축산학회[DOI]
- Choi TJ, "Genetic parameters for yearling weight, carcass traits, and primal-cut yields of Hanwoo cattle", J Anim Sci, 93, pp.1511~1521 (2015)[DOI]
- 이득환, "한우의 도체중, 배장근단면적 및 근내지방도의 유전모수 추정방법", 한국축산학회지, 46(4), pp.509~516 (2004), 한국축산학회
- 황정미, "한우 거세우의 도체형질에 대한 유전모수 추정", 한국축산학회지, 50(5), pp.613~620 (2008), 한국축산학회
- 노승희, "한우의 도체형질 유전모수 추정을 위한 REML과 Bayesian via Gibbs Sampling 방법의 비교연구", 한국축산학회지, 46(5), pp.719~728 (2004), 한국축산학회
- 노승희, "한우 초음파생체단층촬영 형질에 대한 유전모수 추정과 씨수소 선발에 관한 연구", 한국축산학회지, 52(1), pp.1~8 (2010), 한국축산학회
- 김종복, "Genetic Relationship between Carcass Traits and Carcass Price of Korean Cattle", Animal Bioscience, 23(7), pp.848~854 (2010), 아세아·태평양축산학회
- D. H. Lee, "Genetic Relationship between Ultrasonic and Carcass Measurements for Meat Qualities in Korean Steers", Animal Bioscience, 17(1), pp.7~12 (2004), 아세아·태평양축산학회
- 최태정, "Accuracy of genomic breeding value prediction for intramuscular fat using different genomic relationship matrices in Hanwoo (Korean cattle)", Animal Bioscience, 30(7), pp.907~911 (2017), 아세아·태평양축산학회[DOI]
- 이승수, "한우의 유전체 육종가의 정확도 추정", 한국축산학회지, 55(1), pp.13~18 (2013), 한국축산학회
- Badke YM, "Accuracy of estimation of genomic breeding values in pigs using low-density genotypes and imputation", G3(Bethesda), 4, pp.623~631 (2014)[DOI]
- Daetwyler HD, "Accuracy of predicting the genetic risk of disease using a genome-wide approach", PLoS ONE, 3, pp.e3395~ (2008)[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]
- Berry DP, "Development and implementation of genomic predictions in beef cattle", Anim Front, 6, pp.32~38 (2016)[DOI]