Single-Step Genomic Evaluations from Theory to Practice: Using SNP Chips and Sequence Data in BLUPF90

Single-step genomic evaluation became a standard procedure in livestock breeding, and the main reason is the ability to combine all pedigree, phenotypes, and genotypes available into one single evaluation, without the need of post-analysis processing. Therefore, the incorporation of data on genotyped and non-genotyped animals in this method is straightforward. Since 2009, two main implementations of single-step were proposed. One is called single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) and uses single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) to construct the genomic relationship matrix; the other is the single-step Bayesian regression (ssBR), which is a marker effect model. Under the same assumptions, both models are equivalent. In this review, we focus solely on ssGBLUP. The implementation of ssGBLUP into the BLUPF90 software suite was done in 2009, and since then, several changes were made to make ssGBLUP flexible to any model, number of traits, number of phenotypes, and number of genotyped animals. Single-step GBLUP from the BLUPF90 software suite has been used for genomic evaluations worldwide. In this review, we will show theoretical developments and numerical examples of ssGBLUP using SNP data from regular chips to sequence data.

[1]  P M Visscher,et al.  Strategies to utilize marker-quantitative trait loci associations. , 1998, Journal of dairy science.

[2]  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.

[3]  I Misztal,et al.  Effect of different genomic relationship matrices on accuracy and scale. , 2011, Journal of animal science.

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

[5]  I Misztal,et al.  Comparison of genomic predictions for lowly heritable traits using multi-step and single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in Holstein cattle. , 2018, Journal of dairy science.

[6]  V Ducrocq,et al.  Evidence of biases in genetic evaluations due to genomic preselection in dairy cattle. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[7]  S. D. Shackelford,et al.  Meta‐analysis of genome‐wide association from genomic prediction models , 2015, Animal genetics.

[8]  Yutaka Masuda,et al.  Dimensionality of genomic information and performance of the Algorithm for Proven and Young for different livestock species , 2016, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[9]  N. Schork,et al.  Single nucleotide polymorphisms and the future of genetic epidemiology , 2000, Clinical genetics.

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

[11]  P Madsen,et al.  Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs. , 2012, Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience.

[12]  Paul M. VanRaden,et al.  Technical note: adjustment of all cow evaluations for yield traits to be comparable with bull evaluations. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[13]  I Misztal,et al.  Hot topic: Use of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) with a large number of genotypes. , 2015, Journal of dairy science.

[14]  Yutaka Masuda,et al.  The Dimensionality of Genomic Information and Its Effect on Genomic Prediction , 2016, Genetics.

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

[16]  B. Guldbrandtsen,et al.  Quantitative trait loci markers derived from whole genome sequence data increases the reliability of genomic prediction. , 2015, Journal of dairy science.

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

[18]  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.

[19]  Michael E. Goddard,et al.  Genomic selection: A paradigm shift in animal breeding , 2016 .

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

[21]  M. Daly,et al.  A map of human genome sequence variation containing 1.42 million single nucleotide polymorphisms , 2001, Nature.

[22]  Yurii S. Aulchenko,et al.  A Genomic Background Based Method for Association Analysis in Related Individuals , 2007, PloS one.

[23]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Incorporation of causative quantitative trait nucleotides in single-step GBLUP , 2017, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[24]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Development of genomic predictions for harvest and carcass weight in channel catfish , 2018, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[25]  I. Misztal,et al.  Controlling bias in genomic breeding values for young genotyped bulls. , 2019, Journal of dairy science.

[26]  R. L. Quaas,et al.  Genetic Groups in an Animal Model , 1988 .

[27]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Single Step, a general approach for genomic selection , 2014 .

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

[29]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Genetic Evaluation using Unsymmetric Single Step Genomic Methodology with Large Number of Genotypes , 2013 .

[30]  I. Misztal,et al.  Methods for genomic evaluation of a relatively small genotyped dairy population and effect of genotyped cow information in multiparity analyses. , 2014, Journal of dairy science.

[31]  R M Bourdon,et al.  A performance programmed method for computing inbreeding coefficients from large data sets for use in mixed-model analyses. , 1991, Journal of animal science.

[32]  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.

[33]  Karin Meyer,et al.  Estimates of genetic trend for single-step genomic evaluations , 2018, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

[35]  Ismo Strandén,et al.  Comparison of Some Equivalent Equations to Solve Single-Step GBLUP , 2014 .

[36]  I Misztal,et al.  Technical note: Avoiding the direct inversion of the numerator relationship matrix for genotyped animals in single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction solved with the preconditioned conjugate gradient. , 2017, Journal of animal science.

[37]  T A Cooper,et al.  Technical note: adjustment of traditional cow evaluations to improve accuracy of genomic predictions. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[38]  W. Muir,et al.  Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes. , 2012, Genetics research.

[39]  Yutaka Masuda,et al.  BLUPF90 suite of programs for animal breeding with focus on genomics , 2018 .

[40]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Studies on inflation of GEBV in single-step GBLUP for type , 2017 .

[41]  I. Misztal,et al.  Bias in genomic predictions by mating practices for linear type traits in a large-scale genomic evaluation. , 2020, Journal of dairy science.

[42]  M Grossman,et al.  Marker assisted selection using best linear unbiased prediction , 1989, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[43]  R. L. Quaas,et al.  Modified Equations for Sire Models with Groups , 1981 .

[44]  I Misztal,et al.  Unknown-parent groups in single-step genomic evaluation. , 2013, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[45]  Robin Thompson,et al.  ASREML user guide release 1.0 , 2002 .

[46]  I Misztal,et al.  Using recursion to compute the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix. , 2014, Journal of dairy science.

[47]  I Misztal,et al.  Differing genetic trend estimates from traditional and genomic evaluations of genotyped animals as evidence of preselection bias in US Holsteins. , 2018, Journal of dairy science.

[48]  Per Madsen,et al.  Sparse single-step method for genomic evaluation in pigs , 2016, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[49]  Ning Yang,et al.  Genomic prediction in a nuclear population of layers using single‐step models , 2018, Poultry science.

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

[51]  I Misztal,et al.  Genome-wide marker-assisted selection combining all pedigree phenotypic information with genotypic data in one step: An example using broiler chickens. , 2011, Journal of animal science.

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

[53]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Accounting for Inbreeding and Crossbreeding in Genetic Evaluation of Large Populations , 1992 .

[54]  Ismo Strandén,et al.  MiX99 : Technical reference guide for MiX99 solver , 2015 .

[55]  C. R. Henderson.  A simple method for computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix used in prediction of breeding values , 1976 .

[56]  I Misztal,et al.  Efficient computation of the genomic relationship matrix and other matrices used in single-step evaluation. , 2011, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[57]  Yutaka Masuda,et al.  Accuracy of genomic BLUP when considering a genomic relationship matrix based on the number of the largest eigenvalues: a simulation study , 2019, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[58]  Seung Hwan Lee,et al.  MTG2: an efficient algorithm for multivariate linear mixed model analysis based on genomic information , 2015, bioRxiv.

[59]  I Misztal,et al.  Implications of SNP weighting on single‐step genomic predictions for different reference population sizes , 2017, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

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

[61]  Dorian J. Garrick,et al.  An Upper Bound for Accuracy of Prediction Using GBLUP , 2016, PloS one.

[62]  Rohan L Fernando,et al.  The Accuracy and Bias of Single-Step Genomic Prediction for Populations Under Selection , 2016, G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics.

[63]  P. Visscher,et al.  GCTA: a tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. , 2011, American journal of human genetics.

[64]  M. Stoneking.  Single nucleotide polymorphisms: From the evolutionary past. . . , 2001, Nature.

[65]  I. Misztal,et al.  Alternative SNP weighting for single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor evaluation of stature in US Holsteins in the presence of selected sequence variants. , 2019, Journal of dairy science.

[66]  J. Beckmann,et al.  Genetic polymorphism in varietal identification and genetic improvement , 1983, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

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

[68]  R. L. Quaas,et al.  Additive Genetic Model with Groups and Relationships , 1988 .

[69]  Yutaka Masuda,et al.  Frequentist p-values for large-scale-single step genome-wide association, with an application to birth weight in American Angus cattle , 2019, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[70]  Jeffrey R. O’Connell,et al.  Selecting sequence variants to improve genomic predictions for dairy cattle , 2017, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[71]  Juan P. Steibel,et al.  Rapid screening for phenotype-genotype associations by linear transformations of genomic evaluations , 2014, BMC Bioinformatics.

[72]  I Misztal,et al.  Implementation of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor for US Holsteins with a large number of genotyped animals. , 2016, Journal of dairy science.

[73]  John C. McEwan,et al.  Genomic application in sheep and goat breeding , 2016 .

[74]  Christian Maltecca,et al.  Accounting for trait architecture in genomic predictions of US Holstein cattle using a weighted realized relationship matrix , 2015, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[75]  Ole F. Christensen,et al.  Proceedings, 10 World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production DMU - A Package for Analyzing Multivariate Mixed Models in quantitative Genetics and Genomics , 2014 .

[76]  Jack Dekkers,et al.  Comparison of alternative approaches to single-trait genomic prediction using genotyped and non-genotyped Hanwoo beef cattle , 2017, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[77]  I Misztal,et al.  Genetic evaluation using single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in American Angus. , 2015, Journal of animal science.

[78]  Guosheng Su,et al.  Improvement of genomic prediction by integrating additional single nucleotide polymorphisms selected from imputed whole genome sequencing data , 2019, Heredity.

[79]  I. Misztal,et al.  Use of the preconditioned conjugate gradient algorithm as a generic solver for mixed-model equations in animal breeding applications. , 2001, Journal of animal science.

[80]  A Legarra,et al.  Assessment of accuracy of genomic prediction for French Lacaune dairy sheep. , 2014, Journal of dairy science.

[81]  I. Misztal,et al.  Crossbreed evaluations in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor using adjusted realized relationship matrices. , 2016, Journal of animal science.

[82]  Christian Maltecca,et al.  Effectiveness of genomic prediction on milk flow traits in dairy cattle , 2012, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[83]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Inexpensive Computation of the Inverse of the Genomic Relationship Matrix in Populations with Small Effective Population Size , 2015, Genetics.

[84]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Accuracy of estimated breeding values with genomic information on males, females, or both: an example on broiler chicken , 2015, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[85]  I Misztal,et al.  Assigning unknown parent groups to reduce bias in genomic evaluations of final score in US Holsteins. , 2014, Journal of dairy science.

[86]  R. G. Banks,et al.  Single-Step Genetic Evaluations in the Australian Sheep Industry , 2018 .

[87]  Karin Meyer,et al.  WOMBAT—A tool for mixed model analyses in quantitative genetics by restricted maximum likelihood (REML) , 2007, Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B.

[88]  L. R. Schaeffer,et al.  Including coefficients of inbreeding in BLUP evaluation and its effect on response to selection , 2000 .

[89]  Ismo Strandén,et al.  Managing genetic groups in single-step genomic evaluations applied on female fertility traits in Nordic Red Dairy cattle , 2016 .

[90]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Crossbred evaluations using single-step genomic BLUP and algorithm for proven and young with different sources of data1 , 2019, Journal of animal science.

[91]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Genomic evaluations with many more genotypes , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

[93]  I Misztal,et al.  Short communication: genomic evaluations of final score for US Holsteins benefit from the inclusion of genotypes on cows. , 2013, Journal of dairy science.

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

[95]  Bernard Prum,et al.  Estimation of the inbreeding coefficient through use of genomic data. , 2003, American journal of human genetics.

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

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

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