Comparison of genome-wide association and genomic prediction methods for milk production traits in Korean Holstein cattle
1
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objective: The objectives of this study were to compare identified informative regions through two genome-wide association study (GWAS) approaches and determine the accuracy and bias of the direct genomic value (DGV) for milk production traits in Korean Holstein cattle, using two genomic prediction approaches: single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ss-GBLUP) and Bayesian Bayes-B. Methods: Records on production traits such as adjusted 305-day milk (MY305), fat (FY305), and protein (PY305) yields were collected from 265,271 first parity cows. After quality control, 50,765 single-nucleotide polymorphic genotypes were available for analysis. In GWAS for ss-GBLUP (ssGWAS) and Bayes-B (BayesGWAS), the proportion of genetic variance for each 1-Mb genomic window was calculated and used to identify informative genomic regions. Accuracy of the DGV was estimated by a five-fold cross-validation with random clustering. As a measure of accuracy for DGV, we also assessed the correlation between DGV and deregressed-estimated breeding value (DEBV). The bias of DGV for each method was obtained by determining regression coefficients. Results: A total of nine and five significant windows (1 Mb) were identified for MY305 using ssGWAS and BayesGWAS, respectively. Using ssGWAS and BayesGWAS, we also detected multiple significant regions for FY305 (12 and 7) and PY305 (14 and 2), respectively. Both single-step DGV and Bayes DGV also showed somewhat moderate accuracy ranges for MY305 (0.32 to 0.34), FY305 (0.37 to 0.39), and PY305 (0.35 to 0.36) traits, respectively. The mean biases of DGVs determined using the single-step and Bayesian methods were 1.50±0.21 and 1.18±0.26 for MY305, 1.75±0.33 and 1.14±0.20 for FY305, and 1.59±0.20 and 1.14±0.15 for PY305, respectively. Conclusion: From the bias perspective, we believe that genomic selection based on the application of Bayesian approaches would be more suitable than application of ss-GBLUP in Korean Holstein populations.
Abstract
Objective: The objectives of this study were to compare identified informative regions through two genome-wide association study (GWAS) approaches and determine the accuracy and bias of the direct genomic value (DGV) for milk production traits in Korean Holstein cattle, using two genomic prediction approaches: single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ss-GBLUP) and Bayesian Bayes-B. Methods: Records on production traits such as adjusted 305-day milk (MY305), fat (FY305), and protein (PY305) yields were collected from 265,271 first parity cows. After quality control, 50,765 single-nucleotide polymorphic genotypes were available for analysis. In GWAS for ss-GBLUP (ssGWAS) and Bayes-B (BayesGWAS), the proportion of genetic variance for each 1-Mb genomic window was calculated and used to identify informative genomic regions. Accuracy of the DGV was estimated by a five-fold cross-validation with random clustering. As a measure of accuracy for DGV, we also assessed the correlation between DGV and deregressed-estimated breeding value (DEBV). The bias of DGV for each method was obtained by determining regression coefficients. Results: A total of nine and five significant windows (1 Mb) were identified for MY305 using ssGWAS and BayesGWAS, respectively. Using ssGWAS and BayesGWAS, we also detected multiple significant regions for FY305 (12 and 7) and PY305 (14 and 2), respectively. Both single-step DGV and Bayes DGV also showed somewhat moderate accuracy ranges for MY305 (0.32 to 0.34), FY305 (0.37 to 0.39), and PY305 (0.35 to 0.36) traits, respectively. The mean biases of DGVs determined using the single-step and Bayesian methods were 1.50±0.21 and 1.18±0.26 for MY305, 1.75±0.33 and 1.14±0.20 for FY305, and 1.59±0.20 and 1.14±0.15 for PY305, respectively. Conclusion: From the bias perspective, we believe that genomic selection based on the application of Bayesian approaches would be more suitable than application of ss-GBLUP in Korean Holstein populations.
참고문헌 (30)
- Weigel K, "A 100-year review : methods and impact of genetic selection in dairy cattle—From daughter–dam comparisons to deep learning algorithms", J Dairy Sci, 100, pp.10234~10250 (2017)[DOI]
- Meuwissen T, "Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps", Genetics, 157, pp.1819~1829 (2001)
- VanRaden PM, "Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions", J Dairy Sci, 91, pp.4414~4423 (2008)[DOI]
- Kachman SD, "Incorporation of marker scores into national genetic evaluations", 9th genetic prediction workshop, pp.92~98 (2008)
- Misztal I, "Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information", J Dairy Sci, 92, pp.4648~4655 (2009)[DOI]
- Rohan L. Fernando, "Computational strategies for alternative single-step Bayesian regression models with large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals", Genetics Selection Evolution, 48(1), pp.96~ (2016), Springer Science and Business Media LLC[DOI]
- Fragomeni B, "Hot topic : use of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor(BLUP)with a large number of genotypes", J Dairy Sci, 98, pp.4090~4094 (2015)[DOI]
- Z. G. VITEZICA, "Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection", Genetics Research, 93(5), pp.357~366 (2011), Cambridge University Press (CUP)[DOI]
- Lee J, "The impact of training strategies on the accuracy of genomic predictors in United States Red Angus cattle", J Anim Sci, 95, pp.3406~3414 (2017)[DOI]
- Meuwissen T, "Genomic selection : A paradigm shift in animal breeding", Anim Front, 6, pp.6~14 (2016)[DOI]
- Wiggans GR, "Genomic selection in dairy cattle : The USDA experience", Annu Rev Anim Biosci, 5, pp.309~327 (2017)[DOI]
- Sargolzaei M, "FImpute-An efficient imputation algorithm for dairy cattle populations", J Dairy Sci, 94, pp.421~ (2011)
- Misztal I, "BLUPF90 family of programs" (2007), University of Georgia
- Wang H, "Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes in a single-step(ssGWAS)for 6-week body weight in broiler chickens", Front Genet, 5, pp.134~ (2014)[DOI]
- Dorian J Garrick, "Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses", Genetics Selection Evolution, 41(1), pp.55~ (2009), Springer Science and Business Media LLC[DOI]
- Saatchi M, "Accuracy of direct genomic breeding values for nationally evaluated traits in US Limousin and Simmental beef cattle", Genet Sel Evol, 44, pp.38~ (2012)[DOI]
- Garrick DJ, "Implementing a QTL detection study (GWAS) using genomic prediction methodology", pp.275~298 (2013), Genome-wide association studies and genomic prediction: Springer
- Bin Fan, "Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies Loci for Body Composition and Structural Soundness Traits in Pigs", PLoS ONE, 6(2), pp.e14726~ (2011), Public Library of Science (PLoS)[DOI]
- C.M.B. Dematawewa, "Genetic and Phenotypic Parameters for 305-Day Yield, Fertility, and Survival in Holsteins", Journal of Dairy Science, 81(10), pp.2700~2709 (1998), American Dairy Science Association[DOI]
- 조충일, "홀스타인의 유생산형질에 대한 유전모수 추정", 한국축산학회지, 55(1), pp.7~11 (2013), 한국축산학회
- Shadi Nayeri, "Genome-wide association for milk production and female fertility traits in Canadian dairy Holstein cattle", BMC Genetics, 17(1), pp.75~ (2016), Springer Science and Business Media LLC[DOI]
- Li Jiang, "Genome Wide Association Studies for Milk Production Traits in Chinese Holstein Population", PLoS ONE, 5(10), pp.e13661~ (2010), Public Library of Science (PLoS)[DOI]
- Kaupe B, "Joint analysis of the influence of CYP11B1 and DGAT1 genetic variation on milk production, somatic cell score, conformation, reproduction, and productive lifespan in German Holstein cattle", J Anim Sci, 85, pp.11~21 (2007)[DOI]
- Van Hulzen K, "Genome-wide association study to identify chromosomal regions associated with antibody response to Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis in milk of Dutch Holstein-Friesians", J Dairy Sci, 95, pp.2740~2748 (2012)[DOI]
- Zeng J, "Genomic breeding value prediction and QTL mapping of QTLMAS2011 data using Bayesian and GBLUP methods", BMC Proc, 6(Suppl 2), pp.S7~ (2012)
- Wang H, "Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes", Genet Res, 94, pp.73~83 (2012)[DOI]
- S. Hong Lee, "Estimation of genomic prediction accuracy from reference populations with varying degrees of relationship", PLOS ONE, 12(12), pp.e0189775~ (2017), Public Library of Science (PLoS)[DOI]
- Su G, "Preliminary investigation on reliability of genomic estimated breeding values in the Danish Holstein population", J Dairy Sci, 93, pp.1175~1183 (2010)[DOI]
- Ding X, "Accuracy of genomic prediction for milk production traits in the Chinese Holstein population using a reference population consisting of cows", J Dairy Sci, 96, pp.5315~5323 (2013)[DOI]
- Luan T, "The accuracy of genomic selection in Norwegian red cattle assessed by cross validation", Genetics, 183, pp.1119~1126 (2009)[DOI]