Bias in heritability estimates from genomic restricted maximum likelihood methods under different genotyping strategies

We investigated the effects of different strategies for genotyping populations on variance components and heritabilities estimated with an animal model under restricted maximum likelihood (REML), genomic REML (GREML), and single-step GREML (ssGREML). A population with 10 generations was simulated. Animals from the last one, two or three generations were genotyped with 45,116 SNP evenly distributed on 27 chromosomes. Animals to be genotyped were chosen randomly or based on EBV. Each scenario was replicated five times. A single trait was simulated with three heritability levels (low, moderate, high). Phenotypes were simulated for only females to mimic dairy sheep and also for both sexes to mimic meat sheep. Variance component estimates from genomic data and phenotypes for one or two generations were more biased than from three generations. Estimates in the scenario without selection were the most accurate across heritability levels and methods. When selection was present in the simulations, the best option was to use genotypes of randomly selected animals. For selective genotyping, heritabilities from GREML were more biased compared to those estimated by ssGREML, because ssGREML was less affected by selective or limited genotyping.

[1]  C. R. Henderson,et al.  Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. , 1975, Biometrics.

[2]  R. Cantet,et al.  Comparison of restricted maximum likelihood and method R for estimating heritability and predicting breeding value under selection. , 2000, Journal of animal science.

[3]  P. Madsen,et al.  Including different groups of genotyped females for genomic prediction in a Nordic Jersey population. , 2015, Journal of dairy science.

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

[5]  A. M. Pérez O'Brien,et al.  Genomic analysis for managing small and endangered populations: a case study in Tyrol Grey cattle , 2015, Front. Genet..

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

[7]  P. Visscher,et al.  Estimation of pedigree errors in the UK dairy population using microsatellite markers and the impact on selection. , 2002, Journal of dairy science.

[8]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Different genomic relationship matrices for single-step analysis using phenotypic, pedigree and genomic information , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[9]  I Misztal,et al.  Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection. , 2011, Genetics research.

[10]  D. Queller,et al.  Computer software for performing likelihood tests of pedigree relationship using genetic markers , 1999, Molecular ecology.

[11]  I. D. Boer,et al.  Estimation of additive genetic variance when base populations are selected. , 1990 .

[12]  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.

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

[14]  M. Lynch,et al.  Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers. , 1999, Genetics.

[15]  D. Gianola,et al.  Likelihood inferences in animal breeding under selection: a missing-data theory view point , 1989, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[16]  Mehdi Sargolzaei,et al.  QMSim: a large-scale genome simulator for livestock , 2009, Bioinform..

[17]  I Misztal,et al.  Technical note: Acceleration of sparse operations for average-information REML analyses with supernodal methods and sparse-storage refinements. , 2015, Journal of animal science.

[18]  G. Wiggans,et al.  Impact of paternity errors in cow identification on genetic evaluations and international comparisons. , 2001, Journal of dairy science.

[19]  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.

[20]  J. Steibel,et al.  A comparison of methods to estimate genomic relationships using pedigree and markers in livestock populations. , 2016, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[21]  E A Thompson,et al.  The estimation of pairwise relationships , 1975, Annals of human genetics.

[22]  G. Wiggans,et al.  Cow genotyping strategies for genomic selection in a small dairy cattle population. , 2017, Journal of dairy science.

[23]  J. Weller,et al.  Effect of misidentification on genetic gain and estimation of breeding value in dairy cattle populations. , 2000, Journal of dairy science.

[24]  H. D. Patterson,et al.  Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal , 1971 .

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

[26]  M. Blouin,et al.  Use of microsatellite loci to classify individuals by relatedness. , 1996 .

[27]  M. Calus,et al.  Genomic and pedigree-based genetic parameters for scarcely recorded traits when some animals are genotyped. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[28]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Short communication: Analysis of genomic predictor population for Holstein dairy cattle in the United States--Effects of sex and age. , 2015, Journal of Dairy Science.

[29]  P. Visscher,et al.  Common SNPs explain a large proportion of heritability for human height , 2011 .

[30]  Kermit Ritland,et al.  Estimators for pairwise relatedness and individual inbreeding coefficients , 1996 .