11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Using imputation-based whole-genome sequencing data to improve the accuracy of genomic prediction for combined populations in pigs

      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

          For genomic selection in populations with a small reference population, combining populations of the same breed or populations of related breeds is an effective way to increase the size of the reference population. However, genomic predictions based on single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-chip genotype data using combined populations with different genetic backgrounds or from different breeds have not shown a clear advantage over using within-population or within-breed predictions. The increasing availability of whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data provides new opportunities for combined population genomic prediction. Our objective was to investigate the accuracy of genomic prediction using imputation-based WGS data from combined populations in pigs. Using 80K SNP panel genotypes, WGS genotypes, or genotypes on WGS variants that were pruned based on linkage disequilibrium (LD), three methods [genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), single-step (ss)GBLUP, and genomic feature (GF)BLUP] were implemented with different prior information to identify the best method to improve the accuracy of genomic prediction for combined populations in pigs.

          Results

          In total, 2089 and 2043 individuals with production and reproduction phenotypes, respectively, from three Yorkshire populations with different genetic backgrounds were genotyped with the PorcineSNP80 panel. Imputation accuracy from 80K to WGS variants reached 92%. The results showed that use of the WGS data compared to the 80K SNP panel did not increase the accuracy of genomic prediction in a single population, but using WGS data with LD pruning and GFBLUP with prior information did yield higher accuracy than the 80K SNP panel. For the 80K SNP panel genotypes, using the combined population resulted in a slight improvement, no change, or even a slight decrease in accuracy in comparison with the single population for GBLUP and ssGBLUP, while accuracy increased by 1 to 2.4% when using WGS data. Notably, the GFBLUP method did not perform well for both the combined population and the single populations.

          Conclusions

          The use of WGS data was beneficial for combined population genomic prediction. Simply increasing the number of SNPs to the WGS level did not increase accuracy for a single population, while using pruned WGS data based on LD and GFBLUP with prior information could yield higher accuracy than the 80K SNP panel.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

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

          Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score.

          The first national single-step, full-information (phenotype, pedigree, and marker genotype) genetic evaluation was developed for final score of US Holsteins. Data included final scores recorded from 1955 to 2009 for 6,232,548 Holsteins cows. BovineSNP50 (Illumina, San Diego, CA) genotypes from the Cooperative Dairy DNA Repository (Beltsville, MD) were available for 6,508 bulls. Three analyses used a repeatability animal model as currently used for the national US evaluation. The first 2 analyses used final scores recorded up to 2004. The first analysis used only a pedigree-based relationship matrix. The second analysis used a relationship matrix based on both pedigree and genomic information (single-step approach). The third analysis used the complete data set and only the pedigree-based relationship matrix. The fourth analysis used predictions from the first analysis (final scores up to 2004 and only a pedigree-based relationship matrix) and prediction using a genomic based matrix to obtain genetic evaluation (multiple-step approach). Different allele frequencies were tested in construction of the genomic relationship matrix. Coefficients of determination between predictions of young bulls from parent average, single-step, and multiple-step approaches and their 2009 daughter deviations were 0.24, 0.37 to 0.41, and 0.40, respectively. The highest coefficient of determination for a single-step approach was observed when using a genomic relationship matrix with assumed allele frequencies of 0.5. Coefficients for regression of 2009 daughter deviations on parent-average, single-step, and multiple-step predictions were 0.76, 0.68 to 0.79, and 0.86, respectively, which indicated some inflation of predictions. The single-step regression coefficient could be increased up to 0.92 by scaling differences between the genomic and pedigree-based relationship matrices with little loss in accuracy of prediction. One complete evaluation took about 2h of computing time and 2.7 gigabytes of memory. Computing times for single-step analyses were slightly longer (2%) than for pedigree-based analysis. A national single-step genetic evaluation with the pedigree relationship matrix augmented with genomic information provided genomic predictions with accuracy and bias comparable to multiple-step procedures and could account for any population or data structure. Advantages of single-step evaluations should increase in the future when animals are pre-selected on genotypes. Copyright 2010 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes.

            Genome-wide panels of SNPs have recently been used in domestic animal species to map and identify genes for many traits and to select genetically desirable livestock. This has led to the discovery of the causal genes and mutations for several single-gene traits but not for complex traits. However, the genetic merit of animals can still be estimated by genomic selection, which uses genome-wide SNP panels as markers and statistical methods that capture the effects of large numbers of SNPs simultaneously. This approach is expected to double the rate of genetic improvement per year in many livestock systems.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improving accuracy of genomic predictions within and between dairy cattle breeds with imputed high-density single nucleotide polymorphism panels.

              Achieving accurate genomic estimated breeding values for dairy cattle requires a very large reference population of genotyped and phenotyped individuals. Assembling such reference populations has been achieved for breeds such as Holstein, but is challenging for breeds with fewer individuals. An alternative is to use a multi-breed reference population, such that smaller breeds gain some advantage in accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) from information from larger breeds. However, this requires that marker-quantitative trait loci associations persist across breeds. Here, we assessed the gain in accuracy of GEBV in Jersey cattle as a result of using a combined Holstein and Jersey reference population, with either 39,745 or 624,213 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. The surrogate used for accuracy was the correlation of GEBV with daughter trait deviations in a validation population. Two methods were used to predict breeding values, either a genomic BLUP (GBLUP_mod), or a new method, BayesR, which used a mixture of normal distributions as the prior for SNP effects, including one distribution that set SNP effects to zero. The GBLUP_mod method scaled both the genomic relationship matrix and the additive relationship matrix to a base at the time the breeds diverged, and regressed the genomic relationship matrix to account for sampling errors in estimating relationship coefficients due to a finite number of markers, before combining the 2 matrices. Although these modifications did result in less biased breeding values for Jerseys compared with an unmodified genomic relationship matrix, BayesR gave the highest accuracies of GEBV for the 3 traits investigated (milk yield, fat yield, and protein yield), with an average increase in accuracy compared with GBLUP_mod across the 3 traits of 0.05 for both Jerseys and Holsteins. The advantage was limited for either Jerseys or Holsteins in using 624,213 SNP rather than 39,745 SNP (0.01 for Holsteins and 0.03 for Jerseys, averaged across traits). Even this limited and nonsignificant advantage was only observed when BayesR was used. An alternative panel, which extracted the SNP in the transcribed part of the bovine genome from the 624,213 SNP panel (to give 58,532 SNP), performed better, with an increase in accuracy of 0.03 for Jerseys across traits. This panel captures much of the increased genomic content of the 624,213 SNP panel, with the advantage of a greatly reduced number of SNP effects to estimate. Taken together, using this panel, a combined breed reference and using BayesR rather than GBLUP_mod increased the accuracy of GEBV in Jerseys from 0.43 to 0.52, averaged across the 3 traits. Copyright © 2012 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                songhl@cau.edu.cn
                yy623689080@126.com
                jiangyf@cau.edu.cn
                zhezhang@scau.edu.cn
                qzhang@cau.edu.cn
                xding@cau.edu.cn
                Journal
                Genet Sel Evol
                Genet. Sel. Evol
                Genetics, Selection, Evolution : GSE
                BioMed Central (London )
                0999-193X
                1297-9686
                21 October 2019
                21 October 2019
                2019
                : 51
                : 58
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0530 8290, GRID grid.22935.3f, 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, ; Beijing, China
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9546 5767, GRID grid.20561.30, Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, National Engineering Research Centre for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, , South China Agricultural University, ; Guangzhou, Guangdong China
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9482 4676, GRID grid.440622.6, Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Disease Control and Prevention, , Shandong Agricultural University, ; Taian, China
                Article
                500
                10.1186/s12711-019-0500-8
                6805481
                31638889
                e0004206-a224-4727-abcc-233197dacd9e
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 3 April 2019
                : 7 October 2019
                Funding
                Funded by: China Agriculture Research System
                Award ID: CARS-35
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001809, National Natural Science Foundation of China;
                Award ID: 31671327
                Award ID: 31772556
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Program for Changjiang Scholar and Innovation Research Team in University
                Award ID: IRT_15R621
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Major Project of Selection for New Livestock and Poultry Breeds of Zhejiang Province
                Award ID: 2016C02054-5
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Beijing Innovation Consortium of Agriculture Research System
                Award ID: BAIC02-2016
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2019

                Genetics
                Genetics

                Comments

                Comment on this article