Comparison of molecular breeding values based on within- and across-breed training in beef cattle

BackgroundAlthough the efficacy of genomic predictors based on within-breed training looks promising, it is necessary to develop and evaluate across-breed predictors for the technology to be fully applied in the beef industry. The efficacies of genomic predictors trained in one breed and utilized to predict genetic merit in differing breeds based on simulation studies have been reported, as have the efficacies of predictors trained using data from multiple breeds to predict the genetic merit of purebreds. However, comparable studies using beef cattle field data have not been reported.MethodsMolecular breeding values for weaning and yearling weight were derived and evaluated using a database containing BovineSNP50 genotypes for 7294 animals from 13 breeds in the training set and 2277 animals from seven breeds (Angus, Red Angus, Hereford, Charolais, Gelbvieh, Limousin, and Simmental) in the evaluation set. Six single-breed and four across-breed genomic predictors were trained using pooled data from purebred animals. Molecular breeding values were evaluated using field data, including genotypes for 2227 animals and phenotypic records of animals born in 2008 or later. Accuracies of molecular breeding values were estimated based on the genetic correlation between the molecular breeding value and trait phenotype.ResultsWith one exception, the estimated genetic correlations of within-breed molecular breeding values with trait phenotype were greater than 0.28 when evaluated in the breed used for training. Most estimated genetic correlations for the across-breed trained molecular breeding values were moderate (> 0.30). When molecular breeding values were evaluated in breeds that were not in the training set, estimated genetic correlations clustered around zero.ConclusionsEven for closely related breeds, within- or across-breed trained molecular breeding values have limited prediction accuracy for breeds that were not in the training set. For breeds in the training set, across- and within-breed trained molecular breeding values had similar accuracies. The benefit of adding data from other breeds to a within-breed training population is the ability to produce molecular breeding values that are more robust across breeds and these can be utilized until enough training data has been accumulated to allow for a within-breed training set.

[1]  Jeremy F. Taylor,et al.  Implementation and accuracy of genomic selection , 2014 .

[2]  Rohan L. Fernando,et al.  Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

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

[4]  J H J van der Werf,et al.  Components of the accuracy of genomic prediction in a multi-breed sheep population. , 2012, Journal of animal science.

[5]  J. Gibson,et al.  Analyses of published genetic parameter estimates for beef production traits. 1. Heritability , 1994 .

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

[7]  Alison L. Van Eenennaam,et al.  Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multibreed beef cattle populations derived from deregressed breeding values and phenotypes 1 , 2 , 2012 .

[8]  Robert D Schnabel,et al.  Genome-Wide Survey of SNP Variation Uncovers the Genetic Structure of Cattle Breeds , 2009, Science.

[9]  R. Fernando,et al.  Accuracies of genomic breeding values in American Angus beef cattle using K-means clustering for cross-validation , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[10]  Alison L. Van Eenennaam,et al.  The accuracies of DNA-based estimates of genetic merit derived from Angus or multibreed beef cattle training populations. , 2012, Journal of animal science.

[11]  D. Garrick,et al.  Accuracies of direct genomic breeding values in Hereford beef cattle using national or international training populations. , 2013, Journal of animal science.

[12]  R. Fernando,et al.  Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses , 2009, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[13]  J. Gibson,et al.  Analyses of published genetic parameter estimates for beef production traits. 2. Phenotypic and genetic correlations , 1994 .

[14]  Robin Thompson,et al.  ASREML user guide release 1.0 , 2002 .

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

[16]  J D Nkrumah,et al.  Genetic evaluation of Angus cattle for carcass marbling using ultrasound and genomic indicators. , 2010, Journal of animal science.

[17]  R. Fernando,et al.  Genomic prediction of simulated multibreed and purebred performance using observed fifty thousand single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes. , 2010, Journal of animal science.

[18]  M. Goddard,et al.  Reliability of Genomic Predictions Across Multiple Populations , 2009, Genetics.

[19]  R. Schnabel,et al.  Accuracy of direct genomic breeding values for nationally evaluated traits in US Limousin and Simmental beef cattle , 2012, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[20]  R. Fernando,et al.  Genomic selection in admixed and crossbred populations. , 2010, Journal of animal science.