Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:12:54.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliabilities of genomic estimated breeding values in Danish Jersey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2011

J. R. Thomasen ,
B. Guldbrandtsen ,
G. Su ,
R. F. Brøndum  and
M. S. Lund
J. R. Thomasen*
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark VikingGenetics, Ebeltoftvej 16, 8860 Assentoft, Denmark
B. Guldbrandtsen
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
G. Su
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
R. F. Brøndum
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
M. S. Lund
Affiliation:
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, PO Box 50, 8830 Tjele, Denmark
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In order to optimize the use of genomic selection in breeding plans, it is essential to have reliable estimates of the genomic breeding values. This study investigated reliabilities of direct genomic values (DGVs) in the Jersey population estimated by three different methods. The validation methods were (i) fivefold cross-validation and (ii) validation on the most recent 3 years of bulls. The reliability of DGV was assessed using squared correlations between DGV and deregressed proofs (DRPs). In the recent 3-year validation model, estimated reliabilities were also used to assess the reliabilities of DGV. The data set consisted of 1003 Danish Jersey bulls with conventional estimated breeding values (EBVs) for 14 different traits included in the Nordic selection index. The bulls were genotyped for Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers using the Illumina 54 K chip. A Bayesian method was used to estimate the SNP marker effects. The corrected squared correlations between DGV and DRP were on average across all traits 0.04 higher than the squared correlation between DRP and the pedigree index. This shows that there is a gain in accuracy due to incorporation of marker information compared with parent index pre-selection only. Averaged across traits, the estimates of reliability of DGVs ranged from 0.20 for validation on the most recent 3 years of bulls and up to 0.42 for expected reliabilities. Reliabilities from the cross-validation were on average 0.24. For the individual traits, the reliability varied from 0.12 (direct birth) to 0.39 (milk). Bulls whose sires were included in the reference group had an average reliability of 0.25, whereas the bulls whose sires were not included in the reference group had an average reliability that was 0.05 lower.

Keywords

cross-validationdirect genomic valuegenomic selectionreliabilitycomposite breed
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 6 , Special Issue 5: Symposium “Sustainable animal production in the tropics” (SAPT), Guadeloupe, France, November 15–18, 2010 , May 2012 , pp. 789 - 796
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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

Aguilar, I, Misztal, I, Johnson, DL, Legarra, A, Tsuruta, S, Lawlor, TJ 2010. Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 743–752.Google Scholar
Amer, PR, Banos, G 2010. Implications of avoiding overlap between training and test datasets when evaluationg genomic predictions of genetic merit. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3320–3330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danish Cattle Federation 2010. Avlsanalyser. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://www.landbrugsinfo.dk/kvaeg/avl/avlsanalyser/sider/startside.aspxGoogle Scholar
De Roos, APW, Hayes, BJ, Spelman, RJ, Goddard, ME 2008. Linkage disequilibrium and persistence of phase in holstein-friesian, jersey and angus cattle. Genetics 179, 1503–1512.Google Scholar
Forni, S, Aguilar, I, Misztal, I 2011. Different genomic relationship matrices for single-step analysis using phenotypic, pedigree and genomic information. Genetics Selection Evolution 43, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, M 2009. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica 136, 245–257.Google Scholar
Goddard, ME, Hayes, BJ 2009. Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes. Nature Review Genetics 10, 381–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, G, Lund, MS, Zhang, Y, Su, G 2010. Comparison between genomic predictions using daughter yield deviations and conventional estimated breeding values as response variables. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 127, 423–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, BL, Johnson, DL 2010. Genomic predictions for New Zealand dairy bulls and integration with national genetic evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1243–1252.Google Scholar
Hayes, BJ, Bowman, PJ, Chamberlain, AJ, Goddard, ME 2009a. Invited review: genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 433–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, BJ, Bowman, PJ, Chamberlain, AC, Verbyla, K, Goddard, ME 2009b. Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multi-breed dairy cattle populations. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, BJ, Daetwyler, HD, Bowman, PJ, Moser, G, Tier, B, Crump, R, Khatkar, M, Raadsma, HW, oddard, M 2009c. Accuracy of genomic selection: comparing theory and results. Procedings from the Associations of Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 18, 34–37.Google Scholar
Illumina Inc. 2005. Illumina gencall data analysis software – gencall software algorithms for clustering, calling, and scoring genotypes. Illumina Pub. no. 370-2004-009, 1–2.Google Scholar
Janss, L 2009. IBAY manual version 1.46. Bayesian Solutions, Leiden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Lund, M, Sahana, G, de Koning, DJ, Su, G, Carlborg, Ö 2009. Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XII common dataset. I: genomic selection. BMC Proceedings 3, S1.Google Scholar
Luan, T, Woolliams, JA, Lien, S, Kent, M, Svendsen, M, Meuwissen, THE 2009. The accuracy of genomic selection in norwegian red cattle assessed by cross-validation. Genetics 183, 1119–1126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lund, MS, Roos, APW, de Vries, AG, Druet, T, Ducrocq, V, Fritz, S, Guillaume, F, Guldbrandtsen, B, Liu, Z, Reents, R, Scrooten, C, Seefried, M, Su, G 2010. Improving Genomic Prediction by EuroGenomics collaboration. In Book of abstracts of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (ed. G. Erhardt), p. 150. Leipzig, Germany.Google Scholar
Matukumalli, LK, Lawley, CT, Schnabel, RD, Taylor, JF, Allan, MF, Heaton, MP, O'Connell, J, Moore, SS, Smith, TPL, Sonstegard, TS, Van Tassell, CP 2009. Development and characterization of a high density snp genotyping assay for cattle. PLoS One 4, e5350.Google Scholar
Mäntysaari, E, Liu, Z, Van Raaden, P 2010. Interbull validation test for genomic evaluations. InterBull Bulletin 41. Proceedings at the 2010 Interbull workshop and industry meeting, March 4–5, Paris, France, 1–5.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, THE, Hayes, BJ, Goddard, ME 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819–1829.Google Scholar
Misztal, I, Wiggans, GR 1988. Approximation of prediction error variance in large-scale animal models. Journal of Dairy Science 71 (suppl. 2), 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, J, Sørensen, MK, Toivonen, M, Eriksson, J-Å, Aamand, GP 2010. Report on economics basis for a Nordic total merit index. Retreived March 1, 2011 from http://www.nordicebv.info/NR/rdonlyres/B618C0E5-FF6F-4D31-8F86-B3CE4A140043/0/NAVTMI_report_lastversion_131108.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sørensen, AC, Sørensen, MK, Berg, P 2005. Inbreeding in danish dairy cattle breeds. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1865–1872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strandén, I, Mäntysaari, E 2010. A recipe for multiple trait deregression. InterBull Bulletin no. 42. Proceedings at the 2010 Interbull meeting, May 31st–June 4th. Riga, Latvia, 21–24.Google Scholar
Su, G, Guldbrandtsen, B, Gregersen, VR, Lund, MS 2010. Preliminary investigation on reliability of genomic estimated breeding values in the Danish Holstein population. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1175–1183.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Team Avlsværdivurdering 2009. Årstatistik Avl – 2008/2009. Dansk Kvæg, Skejby, Denmark.Google Scholar
Tier, B, Meyer, K 2004. Approximating prediction error covariances among additive genetic effects within animals in multiple-trait and random regression models. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 121, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanRaden, PM, Van Tassell, CP, Wiggans, GR, Sonstegard, TS, Schnabel, RD, Taylor, JF, Schenkel, FS 2009. Invited review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 16–24.Google Scholar
Villumsen, TM, Janss, L 2009. Bayesian genomic selection: the effect of haplotype length and priors. BMC Proceedings 3 (suppl. 1), S11.Google Scholar
Villumsen, TM, Janss, L, Lund, MS 2009. The importance of haplotype length and heritability using genomic selection in dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 126, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed