Differences between genomic-based and pedigree-based relationships in a chicken population, as a function of quality control and pedigree links among individuals.

This work studied differences between expected (calculated from pedigree) and realized (genomic, from markers) relationships in a real population, the influence of quality control on these differences, and their fit to current theory. Data included 4940 pure line chickens across five generations genotyped for 57,636 SNP. Pedigrees (5762 animals) were available for the five generations, pedigree starting on the first one. Three levels of quality control were used. With no quality control, mean difference between realized and expected relationships for different type of relationships was ≤ 0.04 with standard deviation ≤ 0.10. With strong quality control (call rate ≥ 0.9, parent-progeny conflicts, minor allele frequency and use of only autosomal chromosomes), these numbers reduced to ≤ 0.02 and ≤ 0.04, respectively. While the maximum difference was 1.02 with the complete data, it was only 0.18 with the latest three generations of genotypes (but including all pedigrees). Variation of expected minus realized relationships agreed with theoretical developments and suggests an effective number of loci of 70 for this population. When the pedigree is complete and as deep as the genotypes, the standard deviation of difference between the expected and realized relationships is around 0.04, all categories confounded. Standard deviation of differences larger than 0.10 suggests bad quality control, mistakes in pedigree recording or genotype labelling, or insufficient depth of pedigree.

[1]  I Misztal,et al.  Unknown-parent groups in single-step genomic evaluation. , 2013, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[2]  R. Pearson,et al.  Effect of incomplete pedigrees on estimates of inbreeding and inbreeding depression for days to first service and summit milk yield in Holsteins and Jerseys. , 2003, Journal of dairy science.

[3]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Different genomic relationship matrices for single-step analysis using phenotypic, pedigree and genomic information , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[4]  Hans H. Cheng,et al.  The development and characterization of a 60K SNP chip for chicken , 2011, BMC Genomics.

[5]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.

[6]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Accounting for Inbreeding and Crossbreeding in Genetic Evaluation of Large Populations , 1992 .

[7]  A. Legarra,et al.  Evaluation of the utility of diagonal elements of the genomic relationship matrix as a diagnostic tool to detect mislabelled genotyped animals in a broiler chicken population. , 2011, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[8]  S. Wright The Method of Path Coefficients , 1934 .

[9]  P. Visscher,et al.  Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[10]  Andrés Legarra,et al.  A note on the rationale for estimating genealogical coancestry from molecular markers , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[11]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Confirmation and discovery of maternal grandsires and great-grandsires in dairy cattle. , 2013, Journal of dairy science.

[12]  Ismo Strandén,et al.  Allele coding in genomic evaluation , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[13]  P. Lichtner,et al.  The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle , 2010, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[14]  Claude Chevalet,et al.  Variance and Covariance of Actual Relationships between Relatives at One Locus , 2013, PloS one.

[15]  I Misztal,et al.  Efficient computation of the genomic relationship matrix and other matrices used in single-step evaluation. , 2011, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[16]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Genomic inbreeding and relationships among Holsteins, Jerseys, and Brown Swiss. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[17]  G Karigl,et al.  A recursive algorithm for the calculation of identity coefficients , 1981, Annals of human genetics.

[18]  B S Weir,et al.  Variation in actual relationship as a consequence of Mendelian sampling and linkage. , 2011, Genetics research.

[19]  M. Goddard Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response , 2009, Genetica.

[20]  Kermit Ritland,et al.  Estimators for pairwise relatedness and individual inbreeding coefficients , 1996 .

[21]  I Misztal,et al.  Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection. , 2011, Genetics research.

[22]  P. Visscher,et al.  Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix. , 2009, Genetics research.

[23]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Inbreeding in populations with incomplete pedigrees , 1999 .

[24]  O. F. Christensen,et al.  Compatibility of pedigree-based and marker-based relationship matrices for single-step genetic evaluation , 2012, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[25]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Selection and management of DNA markers for use in genomic evaluation. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.