Technical note: Genomic evaluation for crossbred performance in a single-step approach with metafounders.

A single-step genomic BLUP method (ssGBLUP) has been successfully developed and applied for purebred and crossbred performance in pigs. However, it requires phasing the genotypes and inferring the breed origin of alleles in crossbred animals, which is somewhat inconvenient. Recently, a new concept of metafounders that considers the relationship within and across base populations was developed. With this concept of metafounders, regular methods to build and invert the pedigree relationships matrix can be used with only minor modifications and, moreover, genomic relationships and pedigree-based relationships are automatically compatible in the ssGBLUP. In this study, data for the total number of piglets born in Danish Landrace, Yorkshire, and 2-way crossbred pigs and models for purebred and crossbred performance were revisited by use of ssGBLUP with 2 metafounders. Genetic variances and genetic correlations between purebred and crossbred performances were first reestimated. Then, model-based reliabilities of purebred boars for their crossbred performance and predictive abilities for crossbred animals were compared in different scenarios. Results in this study were compared to those in a previous study with identical data but with models that required known breed origin of crossbred genotypes. Results show that relationships for base individuals within Landrace and within Yorkshire are similar and that the ancestor populations for Landrace and Yorkshire are related. In terms of model-based reliabilities and predictive abilities, ssGBLUP with metafounders performs at least as well as the single-step method requiring phasing at a lower complexity.

[1]  P. Ma,et al.  Imputation of genotypes in Danish purebred and two-way crossbred pigs using low-density panels , 2015, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

[3]  Mary Sara McPeek,et al.  Best Linear Unbiased Allele‐Frequency Estimation in Complex Pedigrees , 2004, Biometrics.

[4]  N Gengler,et al.  A simple method to approximate gene content in large pedigree populations: application to the myostatin gene in dual-purpose Belgian Blue cattle. , 2007, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

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

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

[7]  A. Legarra,et al.  Within- and across-breed genomic predictions and genomic relationships for Western Pyrenees dairy sheep breeds Latxa, Manech, and Basco-Béarnaise. , 2014, Journal of dairy science.

[8]  J. Werf,et al.  Maximizing genetic response in crossbreds using both purebred and crossbred information , 1994 .

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

[10]  Quality Control of Genotypes Using Heritability Estimates of Gene Content at the Marker , 2014, Genetics.

[11]  L. D. Vleck Variance of prediction error with mixed model equations when relationships are ignored , 2004, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[12]  L. A. García-Cortés,et al.  Multibreed analysis by splitting the breeding values , 2006, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[13]  P. Sørensen,et al.  Genome-wide and local pattern of linkage disequilibrium and persistence of phase for 3 Danish pig breeds , 2013, BMC Genetics.

[14]  Guosheng Su,et al.  Genetic evaluation for three-way crossbreeding , 2015, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[15]  J. K. Bertrand,et al.  Animal model for genetic evaluation of multibreed data. , 1992, Journal of animal science.

[16]  A Legarra,et al.  Application of single-step genomic evaluation for crossbred performance in pig. , 2016, Journal of animal science.

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

[18]  O. F. Christensen,et al.  Compatibility of pedigree-based and marker-based relationship matrices for single-step genetic evaluation , 2012, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[19]  Jean-Jacques Colleau,et al.  An indirect approach to the extensive calculation of relationship coefficients , 2002, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[20]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Metafounders are related to Fst fixation indices and reduce bias in single-step genomic evaluations , 2017, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[21]  Guosheng Su,et al.  Genomic evaluation of both purebred and crossbred performances , 2014, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[22]  Andrés Legarra,et al.  Joint genomic evaluation of French dairy cattle breeds using multiple-trait models , 2012, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[23]  R. Fernando,et al.  Genetic evaluation by BLUP in two-breed terminal crossbreeding systems under dominance. , 1997, Journal of animal science.

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

[25]  C. Cockerham,et al.  VARIANCE OF GENE FREQUENCIES , 1969, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[26]  B. Kennedy,et al.  C. R. Henderson: the unfinished legacy. , 1991, Journal of dairy science.