Proceedings, 10 World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production Accuracy of Genomic Prediction for Tick Resistance in Braford and Hereford Cattle

One of the main animal health problems in tropical and subtropical cattle production is the bovine tick, which causes decreased performance, hide devaluation, increased production costs with acaricide treatments, and transmission of infectious diseases. This study investigated the utility of genomic prediction as a tool to select Braford (BO) and Hereford (HH) cattle resistant to ticks. The accuracy and bias of different methods for direct and blended genomic prediction was assessed using 10,673 tick counts obtained from 3,435 BO and 928 HH cattle belonging to the Delta G Connection breeding program. A subset of 2,803 BO and 652 HH samples were genotyped and 41,045 markers remained after quality control. Log transformed records were adjusted by a pedigree repeatability model to estimate variance components, genetic parameters, and breeding values (EBV) and subsequently used to obtain deregressed EBV. Estimated heritability and repeatability for tick counts were 0.19 ± 0.03 and 0.29 ± 0.01, respectively. Data were split into 5 subsets using k-means and random clustering for cross-validation of genomic predictions. Depending on the method, direct genomic value (DGV) prediction accuracies ranged from 0.35 with Bayes least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) to 0.39 with BayesB for k-means clustering and between 0.42 with BayesLASSO and 0.45 with BayesC for random clustering. All genomic methods were superior to pedigree BLUP (PBLUP) accuracies of 0.26 for k-means and 0.29 for random groups, with highest accuracy gains obtained with BayesB (39%) for k-means and BayesC (55%) for random groups. Blending of historical phenotypic and pedigree information by different methods further increased DGV accuracies by values between 0.03 and 0.05 for direct prediction methods. However, highest accuracy was observed with single-step genomic BLUP with values of 0.48 for -means and 0.56, which represent, respectively, 84 and 93% improvement over PBLUP. Observed random clustering cross-validation breed-specific accuracies ranged between 0.29 and 0.36 for HH and between 0.55 and 0.61 for BO, depending on the blending method. These moderately high values for BO demonstrate that genomic predictions could be used as a practical tool to improve genetic resistance to ticks and in the development of resistant lines of this breed. For HH, accuracies are still in the low to moderate side and this breed training population needs to be increased before genomic selection could be reliably applied to improve tick resistance.

[1]  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.

[2]  Tad S Sonstegard,et al.  Accuracy of genomic predictions in Bos indicus (Nellore) cattle , 2013, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

[4]  G. Casella,et al.  The Bayesian Lasso , 2008 .

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

[6]  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.

[7]  R. Sutherst,et al.  Ecology of the cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) in subtropical Australia. II. Resistance of different breeds of cattle , 1988 .

[8]  R. Wharton,et al.  THE RELATION BETWEEN ENGORGEMENT AND DROPPING OF BOOPHILUS MICROPLUS (CANESTRINI) (IXODIDAE) TO THE ASSESSMENT OF TICK NUMBERS ON CATTLE , 1970 .

[9]  B. Kinghorn The expression of “Recombination Loss” in quantitative traits , 1980 .

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

[11]  M. R. Honer,et al.  Populations of the cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) on purebred Nellore, Ibage and Nellore × European crossbreds in the Brazilian savanna , 1989, Tropical Animal Health and Production.

[12]  R. Tempelman,et al.  Hierarchical Bayes multiple-breed inference with an application to genetic evaluation of a Nelore-Hereford population. , 2004, Journal of animal science.

[13]  Daniel Gianola,et al.  Additive Genetic Variability and the Bayesian Alphabet , 2009, Genetics.

[14]  M J Kelly,et al.  Genomic predictions in Angus cattle: comparisons of sample size, response variables, and clustering methods for cross-validation. , 2014, Journal of animal science.

[15]  R. S. Verneque,et al.  Open Access Research Article Genome Wide Scan for Quantitative Trait Loci Affecting Tick Resistance in Cattle (bos Taurus × Bos Indicus) , 2022 .

[16]  K. Dzama,et al.  Towards a genomics approach to tick (Acari: Ixodidae) control in cattle: a review. , 2014, Ticks and tick-borne diseases.

[17]  Andrés Legarra,et al.  Performance of Genomic Selection in Mice , 2008, Genetics.

[18]  M. M. Alencar,et al.  Análise de fatores genéticos e ambientais que afetam a infestação de fêmeas bovinas da raça Caracu por carrapatos (Boophilus microplus) , 2003 .

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

[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]  L. Grisi,et al.  Reassessment of the potential economic impact of cattle parasites in Brazil. , 2014, Revista brasileira de parasitologia veterinaria = Brazilian journal of veterinary parasitology : Orgao Oficial do Colegio Brasileiro de Parasitologia Veterinaria.

[22]  N. Jonsson,et al.  Resistance of Holstein-Friesian cows to infestation by the cattle tick (Boophilus microplus). , 2000, Veterinary parasitology.

[23]  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.

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

[25]  G. Wiggans,et al.  Multiple trait genomic evaluation of conception rate in Holsteins. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[26]  C. Morris A review of genetic resistance to disease in Bos taurus cattle. , 2007, Veterinary journal.

[27]  J. Woolliams,et al.  The Impact of Genetic Architecture on Genome-Wide Evaluation Methods , 2010, Genetics.

[28]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Selection of single-nucleotide polymorphisms and quality of genotypes used in genomic evaluation of dairy cattle in the United States and Canada. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[29]  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.

[30]  J. K. Bertrand,et al.  Prediction accuracy for a simulated maternally affected trait of beef cattle using different genomic evaluation models. , 2013, Journal of animal science.

[31]  Timothy P. L. Smith,et al.  Selection and use of SNP markers for animal identification and paternity analysis in U.S. beef cattle , 2002, Mammalian Genome.

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

[33]  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.

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

[35]  John E. Frisch Towards a permanent solution for controlling cattle ticks. , 1999, International journal for parasitology.

[36]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90) , 2002 .

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

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

[39]  M. M. Alencar,et al.  Genetic Analysis of the Infestation of Caracu Female Cattle Breed by Cattle Tick (Boophilus microplus) , 2004 .

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

[41]  G. Davis Genetic parameters for tropical beef cattle in northern Australia: a review , 1993 .

[42]  W. Barendse,et al.  Molecular genetic approaches for identifying the basis of variation in resistance to tick infestation in cattle. , 2011, Veterinary parasitology.

[43]  Haja N Kadarmideen,et al.  Evolutionary process of Bos taurus cattle in favourable versus unfavourable environments and its implications for genetic selection , 2010, Evolutionary applications.

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

[45]  M. Toro,et al.  A new method to estimate relatedness from molecular markers , 2006, Molecular ecology.

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