Genomic breeding value prediction: methods and procedures.

Animal breeding faces one of the most significant changes of the past decades - the implementation of genomic selection. Genomic selection uses dense marker maps to predict the breeding value of animals with reported accuracies that are up to 0.31 higher than those of pedigree indexes, without the need to phenotype the animals themselves, or close relatives thereof. The basic principle is that because of the high marker density, each quantitative trait loci (QTL) is in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with at least one nearby marker. The process involves putting a reference population together of animals with known phenotypes and genotypes to estimate the marker effects. Marker effects have been estimated with several different methods that generally aim at reducing the dimensions of the marker data. Nearly all reported models only included additive effects. Once the marker effects are estimated, breeding values of young selection candidates can be predicted with reported accuracies up to 0.85. Although results from simulation studies suggest that different models may yield more accurate genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) for different traits, depending on the underlying QTL distribution of the trait, there is so far only little evidence from studies based on real data to support this. The accuracy of genomic predictions strongly depends on characteristics of the reference populations, such as number of animals, number of markers, and the heritability of the recorded phenotype. Another important factor is the relationship between animals in the reference population and the evaluated animals. The breakup of LD between markers and QTL across generations advocates frequent re-estimation of marker effects to maintain the accuracy of GEBVs at an acceptable level. Therefore, at low frequencies of re-estimating marker effects, it becomes more important that the model that estimates the marker effects capitalizes on LD information that is persistent across generations.

[1]  Shizhong Xu,et al.  Genomewide Analysis of Epistatic Effects for Quantitative Traits in Barley , 2007, Genetics.

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

[3]  M. Goddard,et al.  Technical note: prediction of breeding values using marker-derived relationship matrices. , 2008, Journal of animal science.

[4]  R. Fernando,et al.  Genomic-Assisted Prediction of Genetic Value With Semiparametric Procedures , 2006, Genetics.

[5]  F. Taddei,et al.  Dissecting the Genetic Components of Adaptation of Escherichia coli to the Mouse Gut , 2007, PLoS genetics.

[6]  W. Ewens Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits , 1999 .

[7]  M P L Calus,et al.  Accuracy of breeding values when using and ignoring the polygenic effect in genomic breeding value estimation with a marker density of one SNP per cM. , 2007, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

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

[9]  M. Goddard,et al.  Linkage Disequilibrium and Persistence of Phase in Holstein–Friesian, Jersey and Angus Cattle , 2008, Genetics.

[10]  M. Goddard,et al.  Prediction of identity by descent probabilities from marker-haplotypes , 2001, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

[12]  Jean-Luc Jannink,et al.  Factors Affecting Accuracy From Genomic Selection in Populations Derived From Multiple Inbred Lines: A Barley Case Study , 2009, Genetics.

[13]  K. Weigel,et al.  Machine learning classification procedure for selecting SNPs in genomic selection: application to early mortality in broilers. , 2007, Developments in biologicals.

[14]  T. Meuwissen Genomic selection: marker assisted selection on a genome wide scale. , 2007, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[15]  M. Goddard,et al.  The distribution of the effects of genes affecting quantitative traits in livestock , 2001, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[16]  W. Barris,et al.  Extent of genome-wide linkage disequilibrium in Australian Holstein-Friesian cattle based on a high-density SNP panel , 2008, BMC Genomics.

[17]  Z. Zeng Precision mapping of quantitative trait loci. , 1994, Genetics.

[18]  Shizhong Xu,et al.  Theoretical basis of the Beavis effect. , 2003, Genetics.

[19]  Lon R. Cardon,et al.  Efficient selective screening of haplotype tag SNPs , 2003, Bioinform..

[20]  D. Berry,et al.  Genomic selection in Ireland , 2009 .

[21]  Robert D Schnabel,et al.  SNP discovery and allele frequency estimation by deep sequencing of reduced representation libraries , 2008, Nature Methods.

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

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

[24]  C. R. Henderson Rapid Method for Computing the Inverse of a Relationship Matrix , 1975 .

[25]  M. Calus,et al.  Accuracy of Genomic Selection Using Different Methods to Define Haplotypes , 2008, Genetics.

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

[27]  W. G. Hill,et al.  Data and Theory Point to Mainly Additive Genetic Variance for Complex Traits , 2008, PLoS genetics.

[28]  M. Goddard Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response , 2009, Genetica.

[29]  Kent A Weigel,et al.  Nonparametric Methods for Incorporating Genomic Information Into Genetic Evaluations: An Application to Mortality in Broilers , 2008, Genetics.

[30]  M. Province,et al.  Using Tree‐Based Recursive Partitioning Methods to Group Haplotypes for Increased Power in Association Studies , 2005, Annals of human genetics.

[31]  A. D. de Roos,et al.  Breeding value estimation for fat percentage using dense markers on Bos taurus autosome 14. , 2007, Journal of dairy science.

[32]  B. Harris,et al.  Current status of the use of genomic information in the national genetic evaluation in New Zealand , 2009 .

[33]  G Banos,et al.  Weighting factors of sire daughter information in international genetic evaluations. , 2001, Journal of dairy science.

[34]  M. Lund,et al.  The importance of haplotype length and heritability using genomic selection in dairy cattle. , 2009, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[35]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Reliability of genomic evaluation of Holstein cattle in Canada , 2009 .

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

[37]  D. Gianola,et al.  Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces Regression Methods for Genomic Assisted Prediction of Quantitative Traits , 2008, Genetics.

[38]  W. Muir,et al.  Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters. , 2007, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[39]  C. Schrooten,et al.  Genomic selection at CRV , 2009 .

[40]  R. Jansen,et al.  Interval mapping of multiple quantitative trait loci. , 1993, Genetics.

[41]  R. Spelman,et al.  Genomic selection in New Zealand and the implications for national genetic evaluation. , 2009 .

[42]  R. Fernando,et al.  The Impact of Genetic Relationship Information on Genome-Assisted Breeding Values , 2007, Genetics.

[43]  M. Soller,et al.  Power of daughter and granddaughter designs for determining linkage between marker loci and quantitative trait loci in dairy cattle. , 1990, Journal of dairy science.

[44]  C. Schrooten,et al.  Effects of the number of markers per haplotype and clustering of haplotypes on the accuracy of QTL mapping and prediction of genomic breeding values , 2009, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

[46]  M. Goddard,et al.  Mapping multiple QTL using linkage disequilibrium and linkage analysis information and multitrait data , 2004, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[47]  J. Woolliams,et al.  Genomic selection using different marker types and densities. , 2008, Journal of animal science.

[48]  I Misztal,et al.  Technical note: Computing strategies in genome-wide selection. , 2008, Journal of dairy science.

[49]  Genomic selection in the Nordic countries , 2009 .