Comparison of alternative approaches to single-trait genomic prediction using genotyped and non-genotyped Hanwoo beef cattle

BackgroundGenomic predictions from BayesA and BayesB use training data that include animals with both phenotypes and genotypes. Single-step methodologies allow additional information from non-genotyped relatives to be included in the analysis. The single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (SSGBLUP) method uses a relationship matrix computed from marker and pedigree information, in which missing genotypes are imputed implicitly. Single-step Bayesian regression (SSBR) extends SSGBLUP to BayesB-like models using explicitly imputed genotypes for non-genotyped individuals.MethodsCarcass records included 988 genotyped Hanwoo steers with 35,882 SNPs and 1438 non-genotyped steers that were measured for back-fat thickness (BFT), carcass weight (CWT), eye-muscle area, and marbling score (MAR). Single-trait pedigree-based BLUP, Bayesian methods using only genotyped individuals, SSGBLUP and SSBR methods were compared using cross-validation.ResultsMethods using genomic information always outperformed pedigree-based BLUP when the same phenotypic data were modeled from either genotyped individuals only or both genotyped and non-genotyped individuals. For BFT and MAR, accuracies were higher with single-step methods than with BayesB, BayesC and BayesCπ. Gains in accuracy with the single-step methods ranged from +0.06 to +0.09 for BFT and from +0.05 to +0.07 for MAR. For CWT, SSBR always outperformed the corresponding Bayesian methods that used only genotyped individuals. However, although SSGBLUP incorporated information from non-genotyped individuals, prediction accuracies were lower with SSGBLUP than with BayesC (π = 0.9999) and BayesB (π = 0.98) for CWT because, for this particular trait, there was a benefit from the mixture priors of the effects of the single nucleotide polymorphisms.ConclusionsSingle-step methods are the preferred approaches for prediction combining genotyped and non-genotyped animals. Alternative priors allow SSBR to outperform SSGBLUP in some cases.

[1]  R. Fernando,et al.  Genome-wide association study for egg production and quality in layer chickens. , 2014, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

[2]  Dorian J. Garrick,et al.  A fast and efficient Gibbs sampler for BayesB in whole-genome analyses , 2015, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[3]  Ignacy Misztal,et al.  Experiences with a single-step genome evaluation. , 2013, Poultry science.

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

[5]  R. Fernando,et al.  Genomic prediction of simulated multibreed and purebred performance using observed fifty thousand single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes. , 2010, Journal of animal science.

[6]  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.

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

[8]  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.

[9]  C. Schrooten,et al.  Genomic prediction of breeding values using previously estimated SNP variances , 2014, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

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

[12]  Rohan L Fernando,et al.  A class of Bayesian methods to combine large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals for whole-genome analyses , 2014, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[13]  R. Fernando,et al.  Mixture models detect large effect QTL better than GBLUP and result in more accurate and persistent predictions , 2016, Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology.

[14]  R. Fernando,et al.  The evolution of methodologies for genomic prediction , 2014 .

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

[16]  M. Lund,et al.  Comparison of genomic predictions using genomic relationship matrices built with different weighting factors to account for locus-specific variances. , 2014, Journal of dairy science.

[17]  Dorian J. Garrick,et al.  JWAS: Julia implementation of Whole-genome Analyses Software , 2018 .

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

[19]  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.

[20]  R. Fernando,et al.  Accuracies of genomic breeding values in American Angus beef cattle using K-means clustering for cross-validation , 2011, Genetics Selection Evolution.

[21]  C. Gondro,et al.  Genome-Wide Association Study Identifies Major Loci for Carcass Weight on BTA14 in Hanwoo (Korean Cattle) , 2013, PloS one.