Estimating Additive and Non-Additive Genetic Variances and Predicting Genetic Merits Using Genome-Wide Dense Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Markers

Non-additive genetic variation is usually ignored when genome-wide markers are used to study the genetic architecture and genomic prediction of complex traits in human, wild life, model organisms or farm animals. However, non-additive genetic effects may have an important contribution to total genetic variation of complex traits. This study presented a genomic BLUP model including additive and non-additive genetic effects, in which additive and non-additive genetic relation matrices were constructed from information of genome-wide dense single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. In addition, this study for the first time proposed a method to construct dominance relationship matrix using SNP markers and demonstrated it in detail. The proposed model was implemented to investigate the amounts of additive genetic, dominance and epistatic variations, and assessed the accuracy and unbiasedness of genomic predictions for daily gain in pigs. In the analysis of daily gain, four linear models were used: 1) a simple additive genetic model (MA), 2) a model including both additive and additive by additive epistatic genetic effects (MAE), 3) a model including both additive and dominance genetic effects (MAD), and 4) a full model including all three genetic components (MAED). Estimates of narrow-sense heritability were 0.397, 0.373, 0.379 and 0.357 for models MA, MAE, MAD and MAED, respectively. Estimated dominance variance and additive by additive epistatic variance accounted for 5.6% and 9.5% of the total phenotypic variance, respectively. Based on model MAED, the estimate of broad-sense heritability was 0.506. Reliabilities of genomic predicted breeding values for the animals without performance records were 28.5%, 28.8%, 29.2% and 29.5% for models MA, MAE, MAD and MAED, respectively. In addition, models including non-additive genetic effects improved unbiasedness of genomic predictions.

[1]  W. Fu,et al.  A Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies Two Novel Promising Candidate Genes Affecting Escherichia coli F4ab/F4ac Susceptibility in Swine , 2012, PloS one.

[2]  M. Lund,et al.  Genomic prediction for Nordic Red Cattle using one-step and selection index blending. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[3]  Guosheng Su,et al.  A common reference population from four European Holstein populations increases reliability of genomic predictions , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[4]  Guosheng Su,et al.  Deregressed EBV as the response variable yield more reliable genomic predictions than traditional EBV in pure-bred pigs , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[5]  B. Guldbrandtsen,et al.  Local Genealogies in a Linear Mixed Model for Genome-Wide Association Mapping in Complex Pedigreed Populations , 2011, PloS one.

[6]  Mats E. Pettersson,et al.  Replication and Explorations of High-Order Epistasis Using a Large Advanced Intercross Line Pedigree , 2011, PLoS genetics.

[7]  M. Szydłowski,et al.  Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XIV common dataset. I: genomic selection , 2011, BMC proceedings.

[8]  M. Lund,et al.  Comparison between genomic predictions using daughter yield deviation and conventional estimated breeding value as response variables. , 2010, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[9]  P. Visscher,et al.  A Commentary on ‘Common SNPs Explain a Large Proportion of the Heritability for Human Height’ by Yang et al. (2010) , 2010, Twin Research and Human Genetics.

[10]  M. Goddard,et al.  Genome-wide association and genomic selection in animal breeding. , 2010, Genome.

[11]  P. Ma,et al.  Genome Wide Association Studies for Milk Production Traits in Chinese Holstein Population , 2010, PloS one.

[12]  D. Tesfaye,et al.  Epistatic QTL pairs associated with meat quality and carcass composition traits in a porcine Duroc × Pietrain population , 2010, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[13]  G. Simm,et al.  Epistatic analysis of carcass characteristics in pigs reveals genomic interactions between quantitative trait loci attributable to additive and dominance genetic effects. , 2010, Journal of animal science.

[14]  P. Visscher,et al.  Common SNPs explain a large proportion of heritability for human height , 2011 .

[15]  S. F. Voordewind,et al.  Estimation of the additive and dominance variances in SA Duroc pigs. , 2010 .

[16]  B. Guldbrandtsen,et al.  Preliminary investigation on reliability of genomic estimated breeding values in the Danish Holstein population. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[17]  B. Harris,et al.  Genomic predictions for New Zealand dairy bulls and integration with national genetic evaluation. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[18]  I Misztal,et al.  Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

[19]  Paul M VanRaden,et al.  International genomic evaluation methods for dairy cattle , 2010, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[20]  M. Lund,et al.  Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped , 2010, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[21]  I Misztal,et al.  Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[22]  I Misztal,et al.  A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[23]  T. Meuwissen,et al.  Accuracy of breeding values of 'unrelated' individuals predicted by dense SNP genotyping , 2009, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[24]  D. Garrick,et al.  Technical note: Derivation of equivalent computing algorithms for genomic predictions and reliabilities of animal merit. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[25]  José Crossa,et al.  Predicting Quantitative Traits With Regression Models for Dense Molecular Markers and Pedigree , 2009, Genetics.

[26]  M. Lund,et al.  Bmc Proceedings Comparison of Analyses of the Qtlmas Xii Common Dataset. I: Genomic Selection , 2022 .

[27]  M. Goddard,et al.  Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

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

[29]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

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

[31]  J. Estellé,et al.  A quantitative trait locus genome scan for porcine muscle fiber traits reveals overdominance and epistasis. , 2008, Journal of animal science.

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

[33]  Shizhong Xu,et al.  Genomewide Analysis of Epistatic Effects for Quantitative Traits in Barley , 2007, Genetics.

[34]  F. Miglior,et al.  Non-additive genetic effects for fertility traits in Canadian Holstein cattle. , 2007 .

[35]  D. Burt,et al.  Simultaneous mapping of epistatic QTL in chickens reveals clusters of QTL pairs with similar genetic effects on growth. , 2004, Genetical research.

[36]  S. Kerje,et al.  A global search reveals epistatic interaction between QTL for early growth in the chicken. , 2003, Genome research.

[37]  J. K. Bertrand,et al.  Estimation of additive and nonadditive genetic variances in Hereford, Gelbvieh, and Charolais by Method R. , 2001, Journal of animal science.

[38]  M. Goddard,et al.  Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. , 2001, Genetics.

[39]  L. Varona,et al.  Prediction of parental dominance combinations for planned matings, methodology, and simulation results. , 1999, Journal of dairy science.

[40]  J. K. Bertrand,et al.  Estimation of the dominance variance for postweaning gain in the U.S. Limousin population. , 1998, Journal of animal science.

[41]  Effect of full sibs on additive breeding values under the dominance model for stature in United States Holsteins. , 1998, Journal of dairy science.

[42]  J. K. Bertrand,et al.  Estimation of dominance variance in purebred Yorkshire swine. , 1998, Journal of animal science.

[43]  L. D. Van Vleck,et al.  Influence of dominance relationships on the estimation of dominance variance with sire-dam subclass effects. , 1997, Journal of animal science.

[44]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Estimation of Variance Components with Large-Scale Dominance Models , 1997 .

[45]  Robin Thompson,et al.  Average information REML: An efficient algorithm for variance parameter estimation in linear mixed models , 1995 .

[46]  I. Hoeschele,et al.  Additive and nonadditive genetic variance in female fertility of Holsteins. , 1991, Journal of dairy science.

[47]  C. R. Henderson Best Linear Unbiased Prediction of Nonadditive Genetic Merits in Noninbred Populations , 1985 .

[48]  J. H. Steiger Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. , 1980 .

[49]  O. J. Dunn,et al.  Comparison of Tests of the Equality of Dependent Correlation Coefficients , 1971 .