Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters.

Accuracy of prediction of estimated breeding values based on genome-wide markers (GEBV) and selection based on GEBV as compared with traditional Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) was examined for a number of alternatives, including low heritability, number of generations of training, marker density, initial distributions, and effective population size (Ne). Results show that the more the generations of data in which both genotypes and phenotypes were collected, termed training generations (TG), the better the accuracy and persistency of accuracy based on GEBV. GEBV excelled for traits of low heritability regardless of initial equilibrium conditions, as opposed to traditional marker-assisted selection, which is not useful for traits of low heritability. Effective population size is critical for populations starting in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium but not for populations started from mutation-drift equilibrium. In comparison with traditional BLUP, GEBV can exceed the accuracy of BLUP provided enough TG are included. Unfortunately selection rapidly reduces the accuracy of GEBV. In all cases examined, classic BLUP selection exceeds what was possible for GEBV selection. Even still, GEBV could have an advantage over traditional BLUP in cases such as sex-limited traits, traits that are expensive to measure, or can only be measured on relatives. A combined approach, utilizing a mixed model with a second random effect to account for quantitative trait loci in linkage equilibrium (the polygenic effect) was suggested as a way to capitalize on both methodologies.

[1]  R. A. Fisher,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1931 .

[2]  Genetic selection strategies: computer modeling. , 1997, Poultry science.

[3]  Elizabeth A Thompson,et al.  The effect of population history on the lengths of ancestral chromosome segments. , 2002, Genetics.

[4]  Carlos D Bustamante,et al.  Ascertainment bias in studies of human genome-wide polymorphism. , 2005, Genome research.

[5]  Z. Liua,et al.  DNA marker technologies and their applications in aquaculture genetics , 2004 .

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

[7]  J. H. Spencer,et al.  Conformations of satellite DNAs. , 1976, Nucleic acids research.

[8]  J. Dallas Estimation of microsatellite mutation rates in recombinant inbred strains of mouse , 2004, Mammalian Genome.

[9]  Shizhong Xu Estimating polygenic effects using markers of the entire genome. , 2003, Genetics.

[10]  Nicola H. Chapman,et al.  Haplotype Blocks in Small Populations , 2002, Computational Methods for SNPs and Haplotype Inference.

[11]  M. Olivier A haplotype map of the human genome. , 2003, Nature.

[12]  S. Wright,et al.  Evolution in Mendelian Populations. , 1931, Genetics.

[13]  W. G. Hill,et al.  Some observations on asymmetrical correlated responses to selection. , 1966, Genetical research.

[14]  A. Robertson,et al.  The Association between Blood Groups and Several Production Characteristics in Three Danish Cattle Breeds , 1961 .

[15]  M. Olivier A haplotype map of the human genome , 2003, Nature.

[16]  C. R. Henderson Applications of linear models in animal breeding , 1984 .

[17]  Andrew G. Clark,et al.  Reconstituting the Frequency Spectrum of Ascertained Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Data , 2004, Genetics.

[18]  W. Barris,et al.  A Primary Assembly of a Bovine Haplotype Block Map Based on a 15,036-Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism Panel Genotyped in Holstein–Friesian Cattle , 2007, Genetics.

[19]  R. Punnett,et al.  The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection , 1930, Nature.

[20]  J. F. Cordes,et al.  DNA marker technologies and their applications in aquaculture genetics. , 2004 .

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

[22]  S. Wright,et al.  THE DISTRIBUTION OF GENE FREQUENCIES IN POPULATIONS. , 1937, Science.

[23]  L. Nel,et al.  Genetic markers and their application in livestock breeding in South Africa: a review: review article , 2003 .

[24]  R. Lande,et al.  Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. , 1990, Genetics.

[25]  J. Dekkers,et al.  Multifactorial genetics: The use of molecular genetics in the improvement of agricultural populations , 2002, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[26]  E. Southern Detection of specific sequences among DNA fragments separated by gel electrophoresis. , 1975, Journal of molecular biology.

[27]  B. Frey,et al.  Efficient low-cost DNA extraction and multiplex fluorescent PCR method for marker-assisted selection in breeding , 2004 .

[28]  K. Mullis,et al.  Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase. , 1988, Science.

[29]  S. Wright Evolution in populations in approximate equilibrium , 1935, Journal of Genetics.

[30]  The interaction of selection intensity, inbreeding depression, and random genetic drift on short- and long-term response to selection: Results using finite locus and finite population size models incorporating directional dominance , 2000 .

[31]  Sudhir Kumar,et al.  Mutation rates in mammalian genomes , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[32]  Cajo J F ter Braak,et al.  Extending Xu's Bayesian Model for Estimating Polygenic Effects Using Markers of the Entire Genome , 2005, Genetics.

[33]  S. Leal Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits , 2001 .

[34]  S. Wright THE GENETICAL THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTIONA Review , 1930 .

[35]  T. Meuwissen,et al.  The use of marker haplotypes in animal breeding schemes , 1996, Genetics Selection Evolution.