Bias in genomic predictions by mating practices for linear type traits in a large-scale genomic evaluation.

The objective of this study was to clarify how bias in genomic predictions is created by investigating a relationship among selection intensity, a change in heritability (Δh2), and assortative mating (ASM). A change in heritability, resulting from selection, reflects the impact that the Bulmer effect has on the reduction in between-family variation, whereas assortative mating impacts the within-family variance or Mendelian sampling variation. A partial data set up to 2014, including 841K genotyped animals, was used to calculate genomic predictions with a single-step genomic model for 18 linear type traits in US Holsteins. A full data set up to 2018, including 2.3 million genotyped animals, was used to calculate benchmark genomic predictions. Inbreeding and unknown parent groups for missing parents of animals were included in the model. Genomic evaluation was performed using 2 different genetic parameters: those estimated 14 yr ago, which have been used in the national genetic evaluation for linear type traits in the United States, and those newly estimated with recent records from 2015 to 2018 and those corresponding pedigrees. Genetic trends for 18 type traits were estimated for bulls with daughters and cows with phenotypes in 2018. Based on selection intensity and mating decisions, these traits can be categorized into 3 groups: (a) high directional selection, (b) moderate selection, and (c) intermediate optimum selection. The first 2 categories can be explained by positive assortative mating, and the last can be explained by negative assortative or disassortative mating. Genetic progress was defined by genetic gain per year based on average standardized genomic predictions for cows from 2000 to 2014. Traits with more genetic progress tended to have more "inflated" genomic predictions (i.e., "inflation" means here that genomic predictions are larger in absolute values than expected, whereas "deflation" means smaller than expected). Heritability estimates for 14 out of 18 traits declined in the last 16 yr, and Δh2 ranged from -0.09 to 0.04. Traits with a greater decline in heritability tended to have more deflated genomic predictions. Biases (inflation or deflation) in genomic predictions were not improved by using the latest genetic parameters, implying that bias in genomic predictions due to preselection was not substantial for a large-scale genomic evaluation. Moreover, the strong selection intensity was not fully responsible for bias in genomic predictions. The directional selection can decrease heritability; however, positive assortative mating, which was strongly associated with large genetic gains, could minimize the decline in heritability for a trait under strong selection and could affect bias in genomic predictions.

[1]  I Misztal,et al.  Assigning unknown parent groups to reduce bias in genomic evaluations of final score in US Holsteins. , 2014, Journal of dairy science.

[2]  F. Teuscher,et al.  Mendelian sampling covariability of marker effects and genetic values , 2016, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[3]  I. Misztal,et al.  Controlling bias in genomic breeding values for young genotyped bulls. , 2019, Journal of dairy science.

[4]  S. Lee,et al.  Effect of selection and selective genotyping for creation of reference on bias and accuracy of genomic prediction. , 2019, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

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

[6]  I. Misztal,et al.  Use of the preconditioned conjugate gradient algorithm as a generic solver for mixed-model equations in animal breeding applications. , 2001, Journal of animal science.

[7]  M. Bulmer,et al.  The Effect of Selection on Genetic Variability , 1971, The American Naturalist.

[8]  I Misztal,et al.  Analysis of age-specific predicted transmitting abilities for final scores in Holsteins with a random regression model. , 2002, Journal of dairy science.

[9]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Modeling missing pedigree in single-step genomic BLUP. , 2019, Journal of dairy science.

[10]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Ancestral Relationships Using Metafounders: Finite Ancestral Populations and Across Population Relationships , 2015, Genetics.

[11]  B. Kinghorn,et al.  The effect of genomic information on optimal contribution selection in livestock breeding programs , 2013, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

[13]  I Misztal,et al.  Differing genetic trend estimates from traditional and genomic evaluations of genotyped animals as evidence of preselection bias in US Holsteins. , 2018, Journal of dairy science.

[14]  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.

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

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

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

[18]  Piter Bijma,et al.  Response to genomic selection: The Bulmer effect and the potential of genomic selection when the number of phenotypic records is limiting , 2012, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[19]  I Misztal,et al.  Using recursion to compute the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix. , 2014, Journal of dairy science.

[20]  D. Falconer,et al.  Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. , 1962 .

[21]  V Ducrocq,et al.  Evidence of biases in genetic evaluations due to genomic preselection in dairy cattle. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[22]  M. Lidauer,et al.  Detection of evaluation bias caused by genomic preselection. , 2018, Journal of dairy science.