30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A comparison of five methods to predict genomic breeding values of dairy bulls from genome-wide SNP markers

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Genomic selection (GS) uses molecular breeding values (MBV) derived from dense markers across the entire genome for selection of young animals. The accuracy of MBV prediction is important for a successful application of GS. Recently, several methods have been proposed to estimate MBV. Initial simulation studies have shown that these methods can accurately predict MBV. In this study we compared the accuracies and possible bias of five different regression methods in an empirical application in dairy cattle.

          Methods

          Genotypes of 7,372 SNP and highly accurate EBV of 1,945 dairy bulls were used to predict MBV for protein percentage (PPT) and a profit index (Australian Selection Index, ASI). Marker effects were estimated by least squares regression (FR-LS), Bayesian regression (Bayes-R), random regression best linear unbiased prediction (RR-BLUP), partial least squares regression (PLSR) and nonparametric support vector regression (SVR) in a training set of 1,239 bulls. Accuracy and bias of MBV prediction were calculated from cross-validation of the training set and tested against a test team of 706 young bulls.

          Results

          For both traits, FR-LS using a subset of SNP was significantly less accurate than all other methods which used all SNP. Accuracies obtained by Bayes-R, RR-BLUP, PLSR and SVR were very similar for ASI (0.39-0.45) and for PPT (0.55-0.61). Overall, SVR gave the highest accuracy.

          All methods resulted in biased MBV predictions for ASI, for PPT only RR-BLUP and SVR predictions were unbiased. A significant decrease in accuracy of prediction of ASI was seen in young test cohorts of bulls compared to the accuracy derived from cross-validation of the training set. This reduction was not apparent for PPT. Combining MBV predictions with pedigree based predictions gave 1.05 - 1.34 times higher accuracies compared to predictions based on pedigree alone. Some methods have largely different computational requirements, with PLSR and RR-BLUP requiring the least computing time.

          Conclusions

          The four methods which use information from all SNP namely RR-BLUP, Bayes-R, PLSR and SVR generate similar accuracies of MBV prediction for genomic selection, and their use in the selection of immediate future generations in dairy cattle will be comparable. The use of FR-LS in genomic selection is not recommended.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A tutorial on support vector regression

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Genome-wide survey of SNP variation uncovers the genetic structure of cattle breeds.

              The imprints of domestication and breed development on the genomes of livestock likely differ from those of companion animals. A deep draft sequence assembly of shotgun reads from a single Hereford female and comparative sequences sampled from six additional breeds were used to develop probes to interrogate 37,470 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 497 cattle from 19 geographically and biologically diverse breeds. These data show that cattle have undergone a rapid recent decrease in effective population size from a very large ancestral population, possibly due to bottlenecks associated with domestication, selection, and breed formation. Domestication and artificial selection appear to have left detectable signatures of selection within the cattle genome, yet the current levels of diversity within breeds are at least as great as exists within humans.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Genet Sel Evol
                Genetics, Selection, Evolution : GSE
                BioMed Central
                0999-193X
                1297-9686
                2009
                31 December 2009
                : 41
                : 1
                : 56
                Affiliations
                [1 ]The CRC for Innovative Dairy Products, Australia
                [2 ]Bellbowrie, QLD 4070, Australia
                [3 ]Animal Breeding and Genetics Unit, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia
                [4 ]ReproGen - Advanced Technologies in Animal Genetics and Reproduction, Faculty of Veterinary Science, University of Sydney, 425 Werombi Road, Camden NSW 2570, Australia
                Article
                1297-9686-41-56
                10.1186/1297-9686-41-56
                2814805
                20043835
                43b680f2-4cd6-4981-b991-6dfdf2e33c36
                Copyright ©2009 Moser et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 12 June 2009
                : 31 December 2009
                Categories
                Research

                Genetics
                Genetics

                Comments

                Comment on this article