Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:22:24.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of relationships between pigs based on pedigree and genomic information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2019

J. Zhang ,
H. Song ,
Q. Zhang  and
X. Ding
J. Zhang
Affiliation:
National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Yuanmingyuan West Road 2#, Haidian District, Beijing 100193, China
H. Song
Affiliation:
National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Yuanmingyuan West Road 2#, Haidian District, Beijing 100193, China
Q. Zhang
Affiliation:
Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Disease Control and Prevention, College of Animal Science and Technology, Shandong Agricultural University, Daizhong Street 61#, Taian 271001, China
X. Ding*
Affiliation:
National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Yuanmingyuan West Road 2#, Haidian District, Beijing 100193, China
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Relationships play a very important role in studies on quantitative genetics. In traditional breeding, pedigree records are used to establish relationships between animals; while this kind of relationship actually represents one kind of relatedness, it cannot distinguish individual specificity, capture the variation between individuals or determine the actual genetic superiority of an animal. However, with the popularization of high-throughput genotypes, assessments of relationships among animals based on genomic information could be a better option. In this study, we compared the relationships between animals based on pedigree and genomic information from two pig breeding herds with different genetic backgrounds and a simulated dataset. Two different methods were implemented to calculate genomic relationship coefficients and genomic kinship coefficients, respectively. Our results show that, for the same kind of relative, the average genomic relationship coefficients (G matrix) were very close to the pedigree relationship coefficients (A matrix), and on average, the corresponding values were halved in genomic kinship coefficients (K matrix). However, the genomic relationship yielded a larger variation than the pedigree relationship, and the latter was similar to that expected for one relative with no or little variation. Two genomic relationship coefficients were highly correlated, for farm1, farm2 and simulated data, and the correlations for the parent-offspring, full-sib and half-sib were 0.95, 0.90 and 0.85; 0.93, 0.96 and 0.89; and 0.52, 0.85 and 0.77, respectively. When the inbreeding coefficient was measured, the genomic information also yielded a higher inbreeding coefficient and a larger variation than that yielded by the pedigree information. For the two genetically divergent Large White populations, the pedigree relationship coefficients between the individuals were 0, and 62 310 and 175 271 animal pairs in the G matrix and K matrix were greater than 0. Our results demonstrated that genomic information outperformed the pedigree information; it can more accurately reflect the relationships and capture the variation that is not detected by pedigree. This information is very helpful in the estimation of genomic breeding values or gene mapping. In addition, genomic information is useful for pedigree correction. Further, our findings also indicate that genomic information can establish the genetic connection between different groups with different genetic background. In addition, it can be used to provide a more accurate measurement of the inbreeding of an animal, which is very important for the assessment of a population structure and breeding plan. However, the approaches for measuring genomic relationships need further investigation.

Keywords

individual kinshipanimal breedinginbreeding coefficientpedigree correctionLarge White
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , April 2020 , pp. 697 - 705
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bolormaa, SRA, Walkden-Brown, S and van der Werf, J 2008. DNA-based parentage verification in two Australian goat herds. Small Ruminant Research 80, 95–100.10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.08.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassell, BG, Adamec, V and Pearson, RE 2003. Effect of incomplete pedigrees on estimates of inbreeding and inbreeding depression for days to first service and summit milk yield in Holsteins and Jerseys. Journal of Dairy Science 86, 2967–2976.10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73894-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, CC, Chow, CC, Tellier, LC, Vattikuti, S, Purcell, SM and Lee, JJ 2015. Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. Gigascience 4, 7.10.1186/s13742-015-0047-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, OF and Lund, MS 2010. Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genetics Selection Evolution 42, 2.10.1186/1297-9686-42-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Da, Y, Wang, C, Wang, S and Hu, G 2014. Mixed model methods for genomic prediction and variance component estimation of additive and dominance effects using SNP markers. PLOS ONE 9, e87666.10.1371/journal.pone.0087666CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Druet, T, Macleod, IM and Hayes, BJ 2014. Toward genomic prediction from whole-genome sequence data: impact of sequencing design on genotype imputation and accuracy of predictions. Heredity 112, 39–47.10.1038/hdy.2013.13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Engelsma, KA, Veerkamp, R, Calus, M and Windig, J 2011. Consequences for diversity when prioritizing animals for conservation with pedigree or genomic information. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 128, 473–481.10.1111/j.1439-0388.2011.00936.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, DS and Mackay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longmans Green, Pearson, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Gao, H, Christensen, OF, Madsen, P, Nielsen, US, Zhang, Y, Lund, MS and Su, G 2012. Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single-step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population. Genetics Selection Evolution 44, 8.10.1186/1297-9686-44-8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gebhardt, C, Urbany, C and Stich, B 2014. Genomics of plant genetic resources. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London.Google Scholar
Goudet, J, Kay, T and Weir, BS 2018. How to estimate kinship. Molecular Ecology 27, 4121–4135.10.1111/mec.14833CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, BJ, Bowman, PJ, Chamberlain, AC, Verbyla, K and Goddard, ME 2009a. Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multi-breed dairy cattle populations. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 51.10.1186/1297-9686-41-51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, BJ, Visscher, PM and Goddard, ME 2009b. Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix. Genetics Research 91, 47–60.10.1017/S0016672308009981CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legarra, A, Aguilar, I and Misztal, I 2009. A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 4656–4663.10.3168/jds.2009-2061CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leroy, G, Danchin-Burge, C, Palhiere, I, Baumung, R, Fritz, S, Meriaux, JC and Gautier, M 2012. An ABC estimate of pedigree error rate: application in dog, sheep and cattle breeds. Animal Genetics 43, 309–314.10.1111/j.1365-2052.2011.02253.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, X, Lund, MS, Zhang, Q, Costa, CN, Ducrocq, V and Su, G 2016. Short communication: improving accuracy of predicting breeding values in Brazilian Holstein population by adding data from Nordic and French Holstein populations. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 4574–4579.10.3168/jds.2015-10609CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, MS, Roos, AP, Vries, AG, Druet, T, Ducrocq, V, Fritz, S, Guillaume, F, Guldbrandtsen, B, Liu, Z, Reents, R, Schrooten, C, Seefried, F and Su, G 2011. A common reference population from four European Holstein populations increases reliability of genomic predictions. Genetics Selection Evolution 43, 43.10.1186/1297-9686-43-43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madsen, P and Su, GS 2016. A program for computing Genomic relationship matrix. Retrieved on 2016 from http://dmu.agrsci.dk/Gmatrix/Google Scholar
Manichaikul, A, Mychaleckyj, JC, Rich, SS, Daly, K, Sale, M and Chen, WM 2010. Robust relationship inference in genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics 26, 2867–2873.10.1093/bioinformatics/btq559CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKenna, A, Hanna, M, Banks, E, Sivachenko, A, Cibulskis, K, Kernytsky, A, Garimella, K, Altshuler, D, Gabriel, S, Daly, M and DePristo, MA 2010. The genome analysis toolkit: a MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Research 20, 1297–1303.10.1101/gr.107524.110CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, THE 2009. Accuracy of breeding values of ‘unrelated’ individuals predicted by dense SNP genotyping. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 35.10.1186/1297-9686-41-35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Misztal, I, Aggrey, SE and Muir, WM 2013. Experiences with a single-step genome evaluation1. Poultry Science 92, 2530–2534.10.3382/ps.2012-02739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliehoek, PA and Bijma, P 2009. Effects of pedigree errors on the efficiency of conservation decisions. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 9.10.1186/1297-9686-41-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pollak, EJ, Bennett, GL, Snelling, WM, Thallman, RM and Kuehn, LA 2012. Genomics and the global beef cattle industry. Animal Production Science 52, 92–99.10.1071/AN11120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, JE, Visscher, PM and Goddard, ME 2010. Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies. Nature Reviews Genetics 11, 800–805.10.1038/nrg2865CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Preisinger, R 2012. Genome-wide selection in poultry. Animal Production Science 52, 121–125.10.1071/AN11071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team 2006. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Ramos, AM, Crooijmans, RPMA, Affara, NA, Amaral, AJ, Archibald, AL, Beever, JE, Bendixen, C, Churcher, C, Clark, R, Dehais, P, Hansen, MS, Hedegaard, J, Hu, ZL, Kerstens, HH, Law, AS, Megens, HJ, Milan, D, Nonneman, DJ, Rohrer, GA, Rothschild, MF, Smith, TPL, Schnabel, RD, Van Tassell, CP, Taylor, JF, Wiedmann, RT, Schook, LB and Groenen, MAM 2009. Design of a high density SNP genotyping assay in the pig using SNPs identified and characterized by next generation sequencing technology. PLoS One 4, 1–13.10.1371/journal.pone.0006524CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Samorè, AB and Fontanesi, L 2016. Genomic selection in pigs: state of the art and perspectives. Italian Journal of Animal Science 15, 211–232.10.1080/1828051X.2016.1172034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, H, Zhang, J, Jiang, Y, Gao, H, Tang, S, Mi, S, Yu, F, Meng, Q, Xiao, W, Zhang, Q and Ding, X 2017. Genomic prediction for growth and reproduction traits in pig using an admixed reference population. Journal of Animal Science 95, 3415–3424.Google ScholarPubMed
Song, H, Zhang, J, Zhang, Q and Ding, X 2019. Using different single-step strategies to improve the efficiency of genomic prediction on body measurement traits in pig. Frontiers in Genetics 9, 730–730.10.3389/fgene.2018.00730CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Uemoto, Y, Sato, S, Kikuchi, T, Egawa, S, Kohira, K, Sakuma, H, Miyashita, S, Arata, S, Kojima, T and Suzuki, K 2017. Genomic evaluation using SNP- and haplotype-based genomic relationship matrices in a closed line of Duroc pigs. Animal Science Journal 88, 1465–1474.10.1111/asj.12805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Binsbergen, R, Calus, MPL, Bink, MCAM, van Eeuwijk, FA, Schrooten, C and Veerkamp, RF 2015. Genomic prediction using imputed whole-genome sequence data in Holstein Friesian cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 47, 71.10.1186/s12711-015-0149-xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanRaden, PM 2008. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4414–4423.10.3168/jds.2007-0980CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villanueva, B, Pong-Wong, R, Fernandez, J and Toro, MA 2005. Benefits from marker-assisted selection under an additive polygenic genetic model. Journal of Animal Science 83, 1747–1752.10.2527/2005.8381747xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, C and Da, Y 2014. Quantitative genetics model as the unifying model for defining genomic relationship and inbreeding coefficient. PLoS ONE 9, e114484.10.1371/journal.pone.0114484CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weber, KL, Thallman, RM, Keele, JW, Snelling, WM, Bennett, GL, Smith, TP, McDaneld, TG, Allan, MF, Van Eenennaam, AL and Kuehn, LA 2012. Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multibreed beef cattle populations derived from deregressed breeding values and phenotypes. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4177–4190.10.2527/jas.2011-4586CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S 1922. Coefficient of inbreeding and relationship. The American Naturalist 56, 330–338.10.1086/279872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S 1934. The method of path coefficients. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 5, 161–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar