Genomic selection: A paradigm shift in animal breeding

• Traditional marker-assisted selection (MAS) did not result in a widespread use of DNA information in animal breeding. The main reason was that the traits of interest in livestock production were much more complex than expected: they were determined by thousands of genes with small effects on phenotype. These effects were usually too small to be statistically significant and so were ignored. • Genomic selection (GS) assumes that all markers might be linked to a gene affecting the trait and concentrates on estimating their effect rather than testing its significance. Three technological breakthroughs resulted in the current wide-spread use of DNA information in animal breeding: the development of the genomic selection technology, the discovery of massive numbers of genetic markers (single nucleotide polymorphisms; SNPs), and high-throughput technology to genotype animals for (hundreds of) thousands of SNPs in a cost-effective manner. • Here we review current methods for GS, including how they deal with practical data, where genotypes are missing on a large scale. The use of whole-genome sequence data is anticipated, and its advantages and disadvantages are depicted. Current and predicted future impacts of GS on dairy and beef cattle, pigs, and poultry breeding are described. Finally, future directions for GS are discussed. • It is anticipated that future GS applications will either be: within breed (wbGS), where accuracy is obtained by maintaining huge withinbreed reference populations; or across breed (abGS) where accuracy is obtained from across-breed reference populations and high-density GS methods that focus on causative genomic regions. We argue that future GS applications will increasingly turn toward abGS.

[1]  A. C. Sørensen,et al.  A crossbred reference population can improve the response to genomic selection for crossbred performance , 2015, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[2]  R. Fernando,et al.  Response and inbreeding from a genomic selection experiment in layer chickens , 2015, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[3]  S. Lien,et al.  Epithelial Cadherin Determines Resistance to Infectious Pancreatic Necrosis Virus in Atlantic Salmon , 2015, Genetics.

[4]  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.

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

[6]  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.

[7]  R. Houston,et al.  Potential of genotyping-by-sequencing for genomic selection in livestock populations , 2015, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[8]  Michael E Goddard,et al.  Improved precision of QTL mapping using a nonlinear Bayesian method in a multi-breed population leads to greater accuracy of across-breed genomic predictions , 2014, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[9]  Z Liu,et al.  A single-step genomic model with direct estimation of marker effects. , 2014, Journal of dairy science.

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

[11]  R. Veerkamp,et al.  Whole-genome sequencing of 234 bulls facilitates mapping of monogenic and complex traits in cattle , 2014, Nature Genetics.

[12]  M. Goddard,et al.  Estimation of genomic breeding values for residual feed intake in a multibreed cattle population. , 2014, Journal of animal science.

[13]  S. Moore,et al.  Reliability of molecular breeding values for Warner-Bratzler shear force and carcass traits of beef cattle - an independent validation study. , 2014, Journal of animal science.

[14]  M. Goddard,et al.  A Multi-Trait, Meta-analysis for Detecting Pleiotropic Polymorphisms for Stature, Fatness and Reproduction in Beef Cattle , 2014, PLoS genetics.

[15]  Kent A Weigel,et al.  Applied animal genomics: results from the field. , 2014, Annual review of animal biosciences.

[16]  B. Hayes,et al.  Toward genomic prediction from whole-genome sequence data: impact of sequencing design on genotype imputation and accuracy of predictions , 2013, Heredity.

[17]  F. Schenkel,et al.  A new approach for efficient genotype imputation using information from relatives , 2014, BMC Genomics.

[18]  J E Pryce,et al.  Evidence for pleiotropism and recent selection in the PLAG1 region in Australian Beef cattle. , 2013, Animal genetics.

[19]  M. Goddard,et al.  Detection of quantitative trait loci in Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle using genome-wide association studies , 2013, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[20]  J E Pryce,et al.  Accuracy of prediction of genomic breeding values for residual feed intake and carcass and meat quality traits in Bos taurus, Bos indicus, and composite beef cattle. , 2013, Journal of animal science.

[21]  R. V. Binsbergen,et al.  Accuracy of Imputation to Whole-Genome Sequence Data in Holstein Friesian Cattle , 2013 .

[22]  A Legarra,et al.  Computational strategies for national integration of phenotypic, genomic, and pedigree data in a single-step best linear unbiased prediction. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[23]  G. Su,et al.  Different methods to calculate genomic predictions--comparisons of BLUP at the single nucleotide polymorphism level (SNP-BLUP), BLUP at the individual level (G-BLUP), and the one-step approach (H-BLUP). , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[24]  M Erbe,et al.  Improving accuracy of genomic predictions within and between dairy cattle breeds with imputed high-density single nucleotide polymorphism panels. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[25]  K. Weigel,et al.  Potential gains in lifetime net merit from genomic testing of cows, heifers, and calves on commercial dairy farms. , 2012, Journal of dairy science.

[26]  B. Hayes,et al.  A review of how dairy farmers can use and profit from genomic technologies , 2012 .

[27]  B. Kinghorn,et al.  A phasing and imputation method for pedigreed populations that results in a single-stage genomic evaluation , 2012, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[28]  Guosheng Su,et al.  A common reference population from four European Holstein populations increases reliability of genomic predictions , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[29]  J. Woolliams,et al.  The unified approach to the use of genomic and pedigree information in genomic evaluations revisited. , 2011, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[30]  T. Meuwissen,et al.  Genomic selection for maternal traits in pigs. , 2011, Journal of animal science.

[31]  M. Goddard,et al.  Using the genomic relationship matrix to predict the accuracy of genomic selection. , 2011, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

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

[33]  T A Cooper,et al.  The genomic evaluation system in the United States: past, present, future. , 2011, Journal of dairy science.

[34]  Rohan L. Fernando,et al.  Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection , 2011, BMC Bioinformatics.

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

[36]  M. Goddard,et al.  Accurate Prediction of Genetic Values for Complex Traits by Whole-Genome Resequencing , 2010, Genetics.

[37]  M. Goddard,et al.  Reliability of Genomic Predictions Across Multiple Populations , 2009, Genetics.

[38]  Judy H. Cho,et al.  Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases , 2009, Nature.

[39]  M. Goddard,et al.  Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes , 2009, Nature Reviews Genetics.

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

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

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

[43]  B. Browning,et al.  Rapid and accurate haplotype phasing and missing-data inference for whole-genome association studies by use of localized haplotype clustering. , 2007, American journal of human genetics.

[44]  Michel Georges,et al.  Positional candidate cloning of a QTL in dairy cattle: identification of a missense mutation in the bovine DGAT1 gene with major effect on milk yield and composition. , 2002, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[45]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction, 2nd Edition , 2001, Springer Series in Statistics.

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

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

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