Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:35:09.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pre-selecting markers based on fixation index scores improved the power of genomic evaluations in a combined Yorkshire pig population

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

S. Ye ,
H. Song ,
X. Ding ,
Z. Zhang Open the ORCID record for Z. Zhang [Opens in a new window]  and
J. Li
S. Ye
Affiliation:
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Centre for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, No. 483, Wushan Road, Tianhe District, 510642Guangzhou, China
H. Song
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, National Engineering Laboratory of Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, No. 2, Yuanmingyuan West Road, Haidian District, 100193Beijing, China
X. Ding
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, National Engineering Laboratory of Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, No. 2, Yuanmingyuan West Road, Haidian District, 100193Beijing, China
Z. Zhang
Affiliation:
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Centre for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, No. 483, Wushan Road, Tianhe District, 510642Guangzhou, China
J. Li*
Affiliation:
Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Centre for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, No. 483, Wushan Road, Tianhe District, 510642Guangzhou, China
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Combining different swine populations in genomic prediction can be an important tool, leading to an increased accuracy of genomic prediction using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chip data compared with within-population genomic. However, the expected higher accuracy of multi-population genomic prediction has not been realized. This may be due to an inconsistent linkage disequilibrium (LD) between SNPs and quantitative trait loci (QTL) across populations, and the weak genetic relationships across populations. In this study, we determined the impact of different genomic relationship matrices, SNP density and pre-selected variants on prediction accuracy using a combined Yorkshire pig population. Our objective was to provide useful strategies for improving the accuracy of genomic prediction within a combined population. Results showed that the accuracy of genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) using imputed whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data in the combined population was always higher than that within populations. Furthermore, the use of imputed WGS data always resulted in a higher accuracy of GBLUP than the use of 80K chip data for the combined population. Additionally, the accuracy of GBLUP with a non-linear genomic relationship matrix was markedly increased (0.87% to 15.17% for 80K chip data, and 0.43% to 4.01% for imputed WGS data) compared with that obtained with a linear genomic relationship matrix, except for the prediction of XD population in the combined population using imputed WGS data. More importantly, the application of pre-selected variants based on fixation index (Fst) scores improved the accuracy of multi-population genomic prediction, especially for 80K chip data. For BLUP|GA (BLUP approach given the genetic architecture), the use of a linear method with an appropriate weight to build a weight-relatedness matrix led to a higher prediction accuracy compared with the use of only pre-selected SNPs for genomic evaluations, especially for the total number of piglets born. However, for the non-linear method, BLUP|GA showed only a small increase or even a decrease in prediction accuracy compared with the use of only pre-selected SNPs. Overall, the best genomic evaluation strategy for reproduction-related traits for a combined population was found to be GBLUP performed with a non-linear genomic relationship matrix using variants pre-selected from the 80K chip data based on Fst scores.

Keywords

genome selectionpre-selection variantsprediction accuracysingle nucleotide polymorphismswhole-genome sequencing
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 8 , August 2020 , pp. 1555 - 1564
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2020

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.)

Footnotes

*

These authors contributed equally to this work.

References

Balding, DJ 2006. A tutorial on statistical methods for population association studies. Nature Reviews Genetics 7, 781–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Browning, BL and Browning, SR 2009. A unified approach to genotype imputation and haplotype-phase inference for large data sets of trios and unrelated individuals. American Journal of Human Genetics 84, 210–223.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, LY, Toghiani, S, Ling, A, Aggrey, SE and Rekaya, R 2018. High density marker panels, SNPs prioritizing and accuracy of genomic selection. BMC Genetics 19, 4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Los Campos, G, Vazquez, AI, Fernando, R, Klimentidis, YC and Sorensen, D 2013. Prediction of complex human traits using the genomic best linear unbiased predictor. PLoS Genetics 9, e1003608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Roos, AP, Hayes, BJ and Goddard, ME 2009. Reliability of genomic predictions across multiple populations. Genetics 183, 1545–1553.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia-Ruiz, A, Cole, JB, VanRaden, PM, Wiggans, GR, Ruiz-Lopez, FJ and Van Tassell, CP 2016. Changes in genetic selection differentials and generation intervals in US Holstein dairy cattle as a result of genomic selection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, E3995–E4004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gianola, D, Fernando, RL and Stella, A 2006. Genomic-assisted prediction of genetic value with semiparametric procedures. Genetics 173, 1761–1776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iheshiulor, OOM, Woolliams, JA, Yu, XJ, Wellmann, R and Meuwissen, THE 2016. Within- and across-breed genomic prediction using whole-genome sequence and single nucleotide polymorphism panels. Genetics Selection Evolution 48, 15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, Y and Reif, JC 2015. Modeling Epistasis in Genomic Selection. Genetics 201, 759–768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemper, KE, Reich, CM, Bowman, PJ, Vander Jagt, CJ, Chamberlain, AJ, Mason, BA, Hayes, BJ and Goddard, ME 2015. Improved precision of QTL mapping using a nonlinear Bayesian method in a multi-breed population leads to greater accuracy of across-breed genomic predictions. Genetics Selection Evolution 47, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knol, EF, Nielsen, B and Knap, PW 2016. Genomic selection in commercial pig breeding. Animal Frontiers 6, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewontin, RC and Krakauer, J 1973. Distribution of gene frequency as a test of the theory of the selective neutrality of polymorphisms. Genetics 74, 175–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, T and Goddard, M 2010. Accurate prediction of genetic values for complex traits by whole-genome resequencing. Genetics 185, 623–631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, TH, Hayes, BJ and Goddard, ME 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819–1829.Google ScholarPubMed
Moghaddar, N, Gore, KP, Daetwyler, HD, Hayes, BJ and van der Werf, JH 2015. Accuracy of genotype imputation based on random and selected reference sets in purebred and crossbred sheep populations and its effect on accuracy of genomic prediction. Genetics Selection Evolution 47, 97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morota, G, Koyama, M, Rosa, GJM, Weigel, KA and Gianola, D 2013. Predicting complex traits using a diffusion kernel on genetic markers with an application to dairy cattle and wheat data. Genetics Selection Evolution 45, 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez-Elizalde, S, Cuevas, J, Pérez-Rodríguez, P and Crossa, J 2015. Selection of the bandwidth parameter in a Bayesian kernel regression model for genomic-enabled prediction. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics 20, 512–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, B, Bouwman, AC, Schrooten, C, Houwing-Duistermaat, J and Veerkamp, RF 2018. Utility of whole-genome sequence data for across-breed genomic prediction. Genetics Selection Evolution 50, 27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, H, Ye, S, Jiang, Y, Zhang, Z, Zhang, Q and Ding, X 2019. Using imputation-based whole-genome sequencing data to improve the accuracy of genomic prediction for combined populations in pigs. Genetics Selection Evolution 51, 58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Speed, D and Balding, DJ 2019. SumHer better estimates the SNP heritability of complex traits from summary statistics. Nature Genetics 51, 277–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Berg, S, Calus, MP, Meuwissen, TH and Wientjes, YC 2015. Across population genomic prediction scenarios in which Bayesian variable selection outperforms GBLUP. BMC Genetics 16, 146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanRaden, PM 2008. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4414–4423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanRaden, PM, Olson, KM, Wiggans, GR, Cole, JB and Tooker, ME 2011. Genomic inbreeding and relationships among Holsteins, Jerseys, and Brown Swiss. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 5673–5682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S 1965. The interpretation of population structure by F-statistics with special regard to systems of mating. Evolution 19, 395.Google Scholar
Yan, G, Qiao, R, Zhang, F, Xin, W, Xiao, S, Huang, T, Zhang, Z and Huang, L 2017. Imputation-based whole-genome sequence association study rediscovered the missing QTL for lumbar number in Sutai pigs. Scientific Reports 7, 615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ye, S, Gao, N, Zheng, R, Chen, Z, Teng, J, Yuan, X, Zhang, H, Chen, Z, Zhang, X, Li, J and Zhang, Z 2019a. Strategies for obtaining and pruning imputed whole-genome sequence data for genomic prediction. Frontiers in Genetics 10, 673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ye, S, Yuan, X, Huang, S, Zhang, H, Chen, Z, Li, J, Zhang, X and Zhang, Z 2019b. Comparison of genotype imputation strategies using a combined reference panel for chicken population. Animal 13, 1119–1126.Google ScholarPubMed
Ye, S, Yuan, X, Lin, X, Gao, N, Luo, Y, Chen, Z, Li, J, Zhang, X and Zhang, Z 2018. Imputation from SNP chip to sequence: a case study in a Chinese indigenous chicken population. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology 9, 30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Z, Erbe, M, He, JL, Ober, U, Gao, N, Zhang, H, Simianer, H and Li, JQ 2015. Accuracy of whole-genome prediction using a genetic architecture-enhanced variance-covariance matrix. G3-Genes Genomes Genetics 5, 615–627.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Z, Ober, U, Erbe, M, Zhang, H, Gao, N, He, J, Li, J and Simianer, H 2014. Improving the accuracy of whole genome prediction for complex traits using the results of genome wide association studies. PLoS ONE 9, e93017.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhong, S, Dekkers, JC, Fernando, RL and Jannink, JL 2009. Factors affecting accuracy from genomic selection in populations derived from multiple inbred lines: a Barley case study. Genetics 182, 355–364.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Ye et al. supplementary material

Ye et al. supplementary material

Download Ye et al. supplementary material(File)
File 929.3 KB