Unknown-parent groups in single-step genomic evaluation.

In single-step genomic evaluation using best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP), genomic predictions are calculated with a relationship matrix that combines pedigree and genomic information. For missing pedigrees, unknown selection processes, or inclusion of several populations, a BLUP model can include unknown-parent groups (UPG) in the animal effect. For ssGBLUP, UPG equations also involve contributions from genomic relationships. When those contributions are ignored, UPG solutions and genetic predictions can be biased. Options to eliminate or reduce such bias are presented. First, mixed model equations can be modified to include contributions to UPG elements from genomic relationships (greater software complexity). Second, UPG can be implemented as separate effects (higher cost of computing and data processing). Third, contributions can be ignored when they are relatively small, but they may be small only after refinements to UPG definitions. Fourth, contributions may approximately cancel out when genomic and pedigree relationships are constructed for compatibility; however, different construction steps are required for unknown parents from the same or different populations. Finally, an additional polygenic effect that also includes UPG can be added to the model.

[1]  L. Rautenbach,et al.  The effect of Phantom Parent Groups on Genetic Trend Estimation , 2002 .

[2]  P Madsen,et al.  Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs. , 2012, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[3]  A Legarra,et al.  Computational strategies for national integration of phenotypic, genomic, and pedigree data in a single-step best linear unbiased prediction. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

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

[5]  M. Goddard,et al.  Short communication: Genomic selection using a multi-breed, across-country reference population. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[6]  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.

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

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

[9]  F. Phocas,et al.  Should genetic groups be fitted in BLUP evaluation? Practical answer for the French AI beef sire evaluation , 2004, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[10]  MIM: an indirect method to assess inbreeding and coancestry in large incomplete pedigrees of selected dairy cattle. , 2011, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

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

[12]  I Misztal,et al.  Multi-breed genetic evaluation in a Gelbvieh population. , 2007, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[13]  Vincent Ducrocq,et al.  Accounting for genomic pre-selection in national BLUP evaluations in dairy cattle , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

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

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

[17]  Z. Vitezica,et al.  Evaluation of a multi-line broiler chicken population using a single-step genomic evaluation procedure. , 2012, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

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

[19]  R. L. Quaas,et al.  Modified Equations for Sire Models with Groups , 1981 .

[20]  I Misztal,et al.  Multiple-trait genomic evaluation of linear type traits using genomic and phenotypic data in US Holsteins. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

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

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

[23]  R. L. Quaas,et al.  Additive Genetic Model with Groups and Relationships , 1988 .

[24]  Ben J Hayes,et al.  Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multi-breed dairy cattle populations , 2009, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[25]  B. Guldbrandtsen,et al.  Reliabilities of genomic prediction using combined reference data of the Nordic Red dairy cattle populations. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[26]  R. Fernando,et al.  Genomic selection of purebreds for crossbred performance , 2009, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[27]  Paul M VanRaden Avoiding Bias From Genomic Pre-Selection in Converting Daughter Information Across Countries , 2012 .

[28]  I Misztal,et al.  Effect of different genomic relationship matrices on accuracy and scale. , 2011, Journal of animal science.

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

[30]  I Misztal,et al.  Technical note: recursive algorithm for inbreeding coefficients assuming nonzero inbreeding of unknown parents. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.