Mogens Sandø Lund

Whole-genome sequencing of 234 bulls facilitates mapping of monogenic and complex traits in cattle

The 1000 bull genomes project supports the goal of accelerating the rates of genetic gain in domestic cattle while at the same time considering animal health and welfare by providing the annotated sequence variants and genotypes of key ancestor bulls. In the first phase of the 1000 bull genomes project, we sequenced the whole genomes of 234 cattle to an average of 8.3-fold coverage. This sequencing includes data for 129 individuals from the global Holstein-Friesian population, 43 individuals from the Fleckvieh breed and 15 individuals from the Jersey breed. We identified a total of 28.3 million variants, with an average of 1.44 heterozygous sites per kilobase for each individual. We demonstrate the use of this database in identifying a recessive mutation underlying embryonic death and a dominant mutation underlying lethal chrondrodysplasia. We also performed genome-wide association studies for milk production and curly coat, using imputed sequence variants, and identified variants associated with these traits in cattle.

Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped

BackgroundThe use of genomic selection in breeding programs may increase the rate of genetic improvement, reduce the generation time, and provide higher accuracy of estimated breeding values (EBVs). A number of different methods have been developed for genomic prediction of breeding values, but many of them assume that all animals have been genotyped. In practice, not all animals are genotyped, and the methods have to be adapted to this situation.ResultsIn this paper we provide an extension of a linear mixed model method for genomic prediction to the situation with non-genotyped animals. The model specifies that a breeding value is the sum of a genomic and a polygenic genetic random effect, where genomic genetic random effects are correlated with a genomic relationship matrix constructed from markers and the polygenic genetic random effects are correlated with the usual relationship matrix. The extension of the model to non-genotyped animals is made by using the pedigree to derive an extension of the genomic relationship matrix to non-genotyped animals. As a result, in the extended model the estimated breeding values are obtained by blending the information used to compute traditional EBVs and the information used to compute purely genomic EBVs. Parameters in the model are estimated using average information REML and estimated breeding values are best linear unbiased predictions (BLUPs). The method is illustrated using a simulated data set.ConclusionsThe extension of the method to non-genotyped animals presented in this paper makes it possible to integrate all the genomic, pedigree and phenotype information into a one-step procedure for genomic prediction. Such a one-step procedure results in more accurate estimated breeding values and has the potential to become the standard tool for genomic prediction of breeding values in future practical evaluations in pig and cattle breeding.

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.

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.

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.

Genome-wide association mapping for female fertility traits in Danish and Swedish Holstein cattle.

A genome-wide association study was conducted using a mixed model analysis for QTL for fertility traits in Danish and Swedish Holstein cattle. The analysis incorporated 2,531 progeny tested bulls, and a total of 36,387 SNP markers on 29 bovine autosomes were used. Eleven fertility traits were analyzed for SNP association. Furthermore, mixed model analysis was used for association analyses where a polygenic effect was fitted as a random effect, and genotypes at single SNPs were successively included as a fixed effect in the model. The Bonferroni correction for multiple testing was applied to adjust the significance threshold. Seventy-four SNP-trait combinations showed chromosome-wide significance, and five of these were significant genome-wide. Twenty-four QTL regions on 14 chromosomes were detected. Strong evidence for the presence of QTL that affect fertility traits were observed on chromosomes 3, 5, 10, 13, 19, 20, and 24. The QTL intervals were generally smaller than those described in earlier linkage studies. The identification of fertility trait-associated SNPs and mapping of the corresponding QTL in small chromosomal regions reported here will facilitate searches for candidate genes and candidate polymorphisms.