Effect of different genomic relationship matrices on accuracy and scale.

Phenotypic data on BW and breast meat area were available on up to 287,614 broilers. A total of 4,113 birds were genotyped for 57,636 SNP. Data were analyzed by a single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP), which accounts for all phenotypic, pedigree, and genomic information. The genomic relationship matrix (G) in ssGBLUP was constructed using either equal (0.5; GEq) or current (GC) allele frequencies, and with all SNP or with SNP with minor allele frequencies (MAF) below multiple thresholds (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4) ignored. Additionally, a pedigree-based relationship matrix for genotyped birds (A(22)) was available. The matrices and their inverses were compared with regard to average diagonal (AvgD) and off-diagonal (AvgOff) elements. In A(22), AvgD was 1.004 and AvgOff was 0.014. In GEq, both averages decreased with the increasing thresholds for MAF, with AvgD decreasing from 1.373 to 1.020 and AvgOff decreasing from 0.722 to 0.025. In GC, AvgD was approximately 1.01 and AvgOff was 0 for all MAF. For inverses of the relationship matrices, all AvgOff were close to 0; AvgD was 2.375 in A(22), varied from 11.563 to 12.943 for GEq, and increased from 8.675 to 12.859 for GC as the threshold for MAF increased. Predictive ability with all GEq and GC was similar except that at MAF = 0.4, they declined by 0.01 for BW and improved by 0.01 for breast meat area. Compared with BLUP, EBV in the ssGBLUP were, on average, increased by up to 1 additive SD greater with GEq and decreased by 2 additive SD less with GC. Genotyped animals were biased upward with GEq and downward with GC. The biases and differences in EBV could be controlled by adding a constant to GC; they were eliminated with a constant of 0.014, which corresponds to AvgOff in A(22). Unbiased evaluation in the ssGBLUP may be obtained with GC scaled to be compatible with A(22). The reduction of SNP with small MAF has a small effect on the real accuracy, but it may falsely increase the estimated accuracies by inversion.

[1]  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.

[2]  P. Visscher,et al.  Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies , 2010, Nature Reviews Genetics.

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

[4]  P. VanRaden,et al.  Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[5]  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.

[6]  M. Goddard,et al.  Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. , 2009, Journal of dairy science.

[7]  G. Moser,et al.  Accuracy of direct genomic values in Holstein bulls and cows using subsets of SNP markers , 2010, Genetics Selection Evolution.

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

[9]  Hans H. Cheng,et al.  A high-density SNP-based linkage map of the chicken genome reveals sequence features correlated with recombination rate. , 2009, Genome research.

[10]  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.

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

[12]  Andrés Legarra,et al.  Performance of Genomic Selection in Mice , 2008, Genetics.

[13]  B. Harris,et al.  Genomic predictions for New Zealand dairy bulls and integration with national genetic evaluation. , 2010, Journal of dairy science.

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

[15]  Z. Vitezica,et al.  Evaluation of a multi-line broiler chicken population using a single-step genomic evaluation procedure. , 2012, Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie.

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

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

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

[19]  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.