Guosheng Su

A common reference population from four European Holstein populations increases reliability of genomic predictions.

BackgroundSize of the reference population and reliability of phenotypes are crucial factors influencing the reliability of genomic predictions. It is therefore useful to combine closely related populations. Increased accuracies of genomic predictions depend on the number of individuals added to the reference population, the reliability of their phenotypes, and the relatedness of the populations that are combined.MethodsThis paper assesses the increase in reliability achieved when combining four Holstein reference populations of 4000 bulls each, from European breeding organizations, i.e. UNCEIA (France), VikingGenetics (Denmark, Sweden, Finland), DHV-VIT (Germany) and CRV (The Netherlands, Flanders). Each partner validated its own bulls using their national reference data and the combined data, respectively.ResultsCombining the data significantly increased the reliability of genomic predictions for bulls in all four populations. Reliabilities increased by 10%, compared to reliabilities obtained with national reference populations alone, when they were averaged over countries and the traits evaluated. For different traits and countries, the increase in reliability ranged from 2% to 19%.ConclusionsGenomic selection programs benefit greatly from combining data from several closely related populations into a single large reference population.

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.

Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs

Genetic evaluation based on information from phenotypes, pedigree and markers can be implemented using a recently developed single-step method. In this paper we compare accuracies of predicted breeding values for daily gain and feed conversion ratio (FCR) in Danish Duroc pigs obtained from different versions of single-step methods, the traditional pedigree-based method and the genomic BLUP (GBLUP) method. In particular, we present a single-step method with an adjustment of the genomic relationship matrix so that it is compatible to the pedigree-based relationship matrix. Comparisons are made for both genotyped and non-genotyped animals and univariate and bivariate models. The results show that the three methods with marker information (two single-step methods and GBLUP) produce more accurate predictions of genotyped animals than the pedigree-based method. In addition, single-step methods provide more accurate predictions for non-genotyped animals. The results also show that the single-step method with adjusted genomic relationship matrix produce more accurate predictions than the original single-step method. Finally, the results for the bivariate analyses show a somewhat improved accuracy and reduced inflation of predictions for FCR for the two single-step methods compared with the univariate analyses. The conclusions are: first, the methods with marker information improve prediction compared with the pedigree-based method; second, a single-step method, contrary to GBLUP, provides improved predictions for all animals compared to the pedigree-based method; and third, a single-step method should be used with an adjustment of the genomic relationship matrix.

Preliminary investigation on reliability of genomic estimated breeding values in the Danish Holstein population

This study investigated the reliability of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) in the Danish Holstein population. The data in the analysis included 3,330 bulls with both published conventional EBV and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. After data editing, 38,134 SNP markers were available. In the analysis, all SNP were fitted simultaneously as random effects in a Bayesian variable selection model, which allows heterogeneous variances for different SNP markers. The response variables were the official EBV. Direct GEBV were calculated as the sum of individual SNP effects. Initial analyses of 4 index traits were carried out to compare models with different intensities of shrinkage for SNP effects; that is, mixture prior distributions of scaling factors (standard deviation of SNP effects) assuming 5, 10, 20, or 50% of SNP having large effects and the others having very small or no effects, and a single prior distribution common for all SNP. It was found that, in general, the model with a common prior distribution of scaling factors had better predictive ability than any mixture prior models. Therefore, a common prior model was used to estimate SNP effects and breeding values for all 18 index traits. Reliability of GEBV was assessed by squared correlation between GEBV and conventional EBV (r(2)(GEBV, EBV)), and expected reliability was obtained from prediction error variance using a 5-fold cross validation. Squared correlations between GEBV and published EBV (without any adjustment) ranged from 0.252 to 0.700, with an average of 0.418. Expected reliabilities ranged from 0.494 to 0.733, with an average of 0.546. Averaged over 18 traits, r(2)(GEBV, EBV) was 0.13 higher and expected reliability was 0.26 higher than reliability of conventional parent average. The results indicate that genomic selection can greatly improve the accuracy of preselection for young bulls compared with traditional selection based on parent average information.

Genomic prediction for Nordic Red Cattle using one-step and selection index blending

This study investigated the accuracy of direct genomic breeding values (DGV) using a genomic BLUP model, genomic enhanced breeding values (GEBV) using a one-step blending approach, and GEBV using a selection index blending approach for 15 traits of Nordic Red Cattle. The data comprised 6,631 bulls of which 4,408 bulls were genotyped using Illumina Bovine SNP50 BeadChip (Illumina, San Diego, CA). To validate reliability of genomic predictions, about 20% of the youngest genotyped bulls were taken as test data set. Deregressed proofs (DRP) were used as response variables for genomic predictions. Reliabilities of genomic predictions in the validation analyses were measured as squared correlations between DRP and genomic predictions corrected for reliability of DRP, based on the bulls in the test data sets. A set of weighting (scaling) factors was used to construct the combined relationship matrix among genotyped and nongenotyped bulls for one-step blending, and to scale DGV and its expected reliability in the selection index blending. Weighting (scaling) factors had a small influence on reliabilities of GEBV, but a large influence on the variation of GEBV. Based on the validation analyses, averaged over the 15 traits, the reliability of DGV for bulls without daughter records was 11.0 percentage points higher than the reliability of conventional pedigree index. Further gain of 0.9 percentage points was achieved by combining information from conventional pedigree index using the selection index blending, and gain of 1.3 percentage points was achieved by combining information of genotyped and nongenotyped bulls simultaneously applying the one-step blending. These results indicate that genomic selection can greatly improve the accuracy of preselection for young bulls in Nordic Red population, and the one-step blending approach is a good alternative to predict GEBV in practical genetic evaluation program.

Comparison of genomic predictions using medium-density (∼54,000) and high-density (∼777,000) single nucleotide polymorphism marker panels in Nordic Holstein and Red Dairy Cattle populations

This study investigated genomic prediction using medium-density (∼54,000; 54K) and high-density marker panels (∼777,000; 777K), based on data from Nordic Holstein and Red Dairy Cattle (RDC). The Holstein data comprised 4,539 progeny-tested bulls, and the RDC data 4,403 progeny-tested bulls. The data were divided into reference data and test data using October 1, 2001, as a cut-off date (birth date of the bulls). This resulted in about 25% genotyped bulls in the Holstein test data and 20% in the RDC test data. For each breed, 3 data sets of markers were used to predict breeding values: (1) 54K data set with missing genotypes, (2) 54K data set where missing genotypes were imputed, and (3) imputed high-density (HD) marker data set created by imputing the 54K data to the HD data based on 557 bulls genotyped using a 777K single nucleotide polymorphism chip in Holstein, and 706 bulls in RDC. Based on the 3 marker data sets, direct genomic breeding values (DGV) for protein, fertility, and udder health were predicted using a genomic BLUP model (GBLUP) and a Bayesian mixture model with 2 normal distributions. Reliability of DGV was measured as squared correlations between deregressed proofs (DRP) and DGV corrected for reliability of DRP. Unbiasedness was assessed by regression of DRP on DGV, based on the bulls in the test data sets. Averaged over the 3 traits, reliability of DGV based on the HD markers was 0.5% higher than that based on the 54K data in Holstein, and 1.0% higher than that in RDC. In addition, the HD markers led to an improvement of unbiasedness of DGV. The Bayesian mixture model led to 0.5% higher reliability than the GBLUP model in Holstein, but not in RDC. Imputing missing genotypes in the 54K marker data did not improve genomic predictions for most of the traits.

Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single-step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population

BackgroundA single-step blending approach allows genomic prediction using information of genotyped and non-genotyped animals simultaneously. However, the combined relationship matrix in a single-step method may need to be adjusted because marker-based and pedigree-based relationship matrices may not be on the same scale. The same may apply when a GBLUP model includes both genomic breeding values and residual polygenic effects. The objective of this study was to compare single-step blending methods and GBLUP methods with and without adjustment of the genomic relationship matrix for genomic prediction of 16 traits in the Nordic Holstein population.MethodsThe data consisted of de-regressed proofs (DRP) for 5 214 genotyped and 9 374 non-genotyped bulls. The bulls were divided into a training and a validation population by birth date, October 1, 2001. Five approaches for genomic prediction were used: 1) a simple GBLUP method, 2) a GBLUP method with a polygenic effect, 3) an adjusted GBLUP method with a polygenic effect, 4) a single-step blending method, and 5) an adjusted single-step blending method. In the adjusted GBLUP and single-step methods, the genomic relationship matrix was adjusted for the difference of scale between the genomic and the pedigree relationship matrices. A set of weights on the pedigree relationship matrix (ranging from 0.05 to 0.40) was used to build the combined relationship matrix in the single-step blending method and the GBLUP method with a polygenetic effect.ResultsAveraged over the 16 traits, reliabilities of genomic breeding values predicted using the GBLUP method with a polygenic effect (relative weight of 0.20) were 0.3% higher than reliabilities from the simple GBLUP method (without a polygenic effect). The adjusted single-step blending and original single-step blending methods (relative weight of 0.20) had average reliabilities that were 2.1% and 1.8% higher than the simple GBLUP method, respectively. In addition, the GBLUP method with a polygenic effect led to less bias of genomic predictions than the simple GBLUP method, and both single-step blending methods yielded less bias of predictions than all GBLUP methods.ConclusionsThe single-step blending method is an appealing approach for practical genomic prediction in dairy cattle. Genomic prediction from the single-step blending method can be improved by adjusting the scale of the genomic relationship matrix.

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

BackgroundGenomic 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.MethodsReliabilities 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.ResultsUsing 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.ConclusionsDeregressed 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.

Effect of imputing markers from a low-density chip on the reliability of genomic breeding values in Holstein populations.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the imputation error and loss of reliability of direct genomic values (DGV) or genomically enhanced breeding values (GEBV) when using genotypes imputed from a 3,000-marker single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel to a 50,000-marker SNP panel. Data consisted of genotypes of 15,966 European Holstein bulls from the combined EuroGenomics reference population. Genotypes with the low-density chip were created by erasing markers from 50,000-marker data. The studies were performed in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) using a BLUP model for prediction of DGV and in France using a genomic marker-assisted selection approach for prediction of GEBV. Imputation in both studies was done using a combination of the DAGPHASE 1.1 and Beagle 2.1.3 software. Traits considered were protein yield, fertility, somatic cell count, and udder depth. Imputation of missing markers and prediction of breeding values were performed using 2 different reference populations in each country: either a national reference population or a combined EuroGenomics reference population. Validation for accuracy of imputation and genomic prediction was done based on national test data. Mean imputation error rates when using national reference animals was 5.5 and 3.9% in the Nordic countries and France, respectively, whereas imputation based on the EuroGenomics reference data set gave mean error rates of 4.0 and 2.1%, respectively. Prediction of GEBV based on genotypes imputed with a national reference data set gave an absolute loss of 0.05 in mean reliability of GEBV in the French study, whereas a loss of 0.03 was obtained for reliability of DGV in the Nordic study. When genotypes were imputed using the EuroGenomics reference, a loss of 0.02 in mean reliability of GEBV was detected in the French study, and a loss of 0.06 was observed for the mean reliability of DGV in the Nordic study. Consequently, the reliability of DGV using the imputed SNP data was 0.38 based on national reference data, and 0.48 based on EuroGenomics reference data in the Nordic validation, and the reliability of GEBV using the imputed SNP data was 0.41 based on national reference data, and 0.44 based on EuroGenomics reference data in the French validation.

Reliabilities of genomic prediction using combined reference data of the Nordic Red dairy cattle populations

This study investigated the possibility of increasing the reliability of direct genomic values (DGV) by combining reference populations. The data were from 3,735 bulls from Danish, Swedish, and Finnish Red dairy cattle populations. Single nucleotide polymorphism markers were fitted as random variables in a Bayesian model, using published estimated breeding values as response variables. In total, 17 index traits were analyzed. Reliabilities were estimated using a 5-fold cross validation, and calculated as the within-year squared correlation between estimated breeding values and DGV. Marker effects were estimated using reference populations from individual countries, as well as using a combined reference population from all 3 countries. Single-country reference populations gave mean reliabilities across 17 traits of 0.19 to 0.23, whereas the combined reference gave mean reliabilities of 0.26 for all populations. Using marker effects from 1 population to predict the other 2 gave a loss in mean reliability of 0.14 to 0.21 when predicting Swedish or Finnish animals with Danish marker effects, or vice versa. Using Swedish or Finnish marker effects to predict each other only showed a loss in mean reliability of 0.03 to 0.05. A combined Swedish-Finnish reference population led to an average reliability as high as that from the 3-country reference population, but somewhat different for individual traits. The results from this study show that it is possible to increase the reliability of DGV by combining reference populations from related populations.