Comparison of BLUP and Bayesian methods for different sizes of training population in genomic selection

This study aims to compare the accuracy of pedigree-based and genomic-based breeding value prediction for different training population sizes. In this study, Bayes (A, B, C, Cpi) and GBLUP methods for genomic selection and BLUP method for pedigree-based selection were used. Genomic and pedigree-based breeding values were estimated for partial milk yield (158 days) of Holstein cows (400 individuals) from a private enterprise in the USA. For this aim, populations were created for indirect breeding value estimates as training (322–360) and test (78–40) populations. In animals genotyped with a 54k SNP, the marker file was encoded as –10, 0, and 10 for AA, AB, and BB marker genotypes, respectively. Bayes and GBLUP methods were performed using GenSel 4.55 software. A total of 50,000 iterations were used, with the first 5000 excluded as the burn-in. Pedigree-based breeding values were estimated by REML using MTDFREML software employing an animal model. Correlations between partial milk yield and estimated breeding values were used to assess the predictive ability for methods. Bayes B method gave the highest accuracy for the indirect estimate of breeding value.

PDF

___

1. Kızılkaya K. Application of different methods in the estimation of breeding values in dairy cattle. MSc, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey, 1993 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
2. Ünalan A. Prediction of genetic parameters related to milk yields of Holstein Friesian population reared in the Ceylanpınar Agricultural State Farm by bayesian and REML methods. PhD, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey, 2002 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
3. Mrode RA. Linear Models for the Prediction of Animal Breeding Values. Edinburgh, UK: CAB International; 1996.
4. Oldenbroek K, van der Waaij L. Textbook Animal Breeding: Animal Breeding and Genetics for BSc Students. the Netherlands: Centre for Genetic Resources and Animal Breeding and Genomics Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, 2014.
5. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001; 157 (4): 1819-1829.
6. Georges M, Nielsen D, Mackinnon M, Mishra A, Okimoto R et al. Mapping quantitative trait loci controlling milk production in dairy cattle by exploiting progeny testing. Genetics 1995; 139 (2): 907-920.
7. Fernando RL, Grossman M. Marker assisted selection using best linear unbiased prediction. Genetics Selection Evolution 1989; 21 (4): 467-477. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-21-4-467
8. Meuwissen THE, Goddard ME. The use of marker haplotypes in animal breeding schemes. Genetics Selection Evolution 1996; 28 (2): 161-176. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-28-2-161
9. Goddard ME, Hayes BJ. Genomic selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 2007; 124 (6): 323-330. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00702.x
10. Neves HH, Carvalheiro R, Queiroz SA. A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population. BMC Genetics 2012; 13 (100): 1-17. doi: 10.1186/1471-2156- 13-100
11. Fan B, Du ZQ, Gorbach DM, Rothschild MF. Development and application of high-density SNP arrays in genomic studies of domestic animals. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2010; 23 (7): 833-847. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2010.r.03
12. Yılmaz O, Öner Y, Karaman E, Cemal İ. Genome wide association studies and genomic selection in livestock. In: 9th National Animal Science Congress; Konya, Turkey; 2015. pp. 394-401 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
13. Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AJ, Goddard ME. Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges. Journal of Dairy Science 2009; 92 (2): 433-443. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105- 12-186
14. Özbeyaz C, Kocakaya A. Genomic evaluation in dairy cattle (A review). Lalahan Hayvancılık Araştırma Enstitüsü Dergisi 2011; 51 (2): 93-104. (in Turkish with an abstract in English)
15. Calus MPL, Meuwissen THE, de Roos APW, Veerkamp RF. Accuracy of genomic selection using different methods to define haplotypes. Genetics 2008; 178 (1): 553-561. doi: 10.1534/genetics.107.080838
16. Boldman KG, Kriese L, Van Vleck L, Van Tassell C, Kachman S. A manual for use of MTDFREML. A set of programs to obtain estimates of variance and covariances (Draft) USDA, ARS, Lincoln, NE, 1995.
17. Gianola D, de los Campos G, Hill WG, Manfredi E, Fernando R. Additive genetic variability and the bayesian alphabet. Genetics 2009; 183 (1): 347-363. doi: 10.1534/genetics.109.103952
18. Karaman E, Cheng H, Fırat MZ, Garrick DJ, Fernando RL. An upper bound for accuracy of prediction using GBLUP. Plos One 2016; 11 (8): 1-18. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161054
19. Saatchi M, Schnabel RD, Rolf MM, Taylor JF, Garrick DJ. Accuracy of direct genomic breeding values for nationally evaluated traits in US Limousin and Simmental beef cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 2012; 44 (38): 1-10. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-38
20. Fernando RL, Garrick DJ. GenSel-User manual for a portfolio of genomic selection related analyses. 2009.
21. Abubakar BY, McDowell RE, Van Vleck LD. Genetic evaluation of Holsteins in Columbia. Journal of Dairy Science 1986; 69 (4): 1081-1086. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(86)80504-5
22. Kim JS, Park KD, Jeong HY, Ahn BS, Lee KJ. Estimation of regional genetic trends for milk and fat yields in the Korean Holstein population. Korean Journal of Animal Sciences 1999; 41: 11-14.
23. Cañón J, Berger PJ, Gutiérrez JP, Muñoz A. Estimate of (co) variance components for milk and fat yield in Spanish holstein population using REML. Archivos De Zootecnia 1989; 38 (142): 249-259.
24. Saatçi MR, Ulutaş Z, Dewi IA, Akkuş İ. Environmental effects, variance components and estimated breeding values of milk yield for Holstein cows in Dalaman state farm. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 2000; 31 (2): 97-101.
25. Ertuğrul O, Orman MN, Güneren G. Some genetic parameters of milk production in the Holstein breed. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 2002; 26 (3): 463-469 (in Turkish with an abstract in English).
26. Campos MS, Wilcox CJ, Becerril CM, Diz A. Genetic parameters for yield and reproductive traits of Holstein and Jersey cattle in Florida. Journal of Dairy Science 1994; 77 (3): 867-873. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(94)77021-1
27. Dimov G, Albuquerque LG, Keown JF, Van Vleck LD, Norman HD. Variance of interaction effects of sire and herd for yield traits of Holsteins in California, New York, and Pennsylvania with an animal model. Journal of Dairy Science 1995; 78 (4): 939-946. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(95)76709-1
28. Gebreyohannes G, Koonawootrittriron S, Elzo MA, Suwanasopee T. Variance components and genetic parameters for milk production and lactation pattern in an ethiopian multibreed dairy cattle population. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2013; 26 (9): 1237-1246. doi: 10.5713/ ajas.2013.13040
29. Gengler N, Tijani A, Wiggans GR, Van Tassell CP, Philpot JC. Estimation of (co)variances of test day yields for first lactation Holsteins in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 1999; 82 (1): 225.e1-e14. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75227-6
30. Muir BL, Fatehi J, Schaeffer LR. Genetic relationships between persistency and reproductive performance in first-lactation Canadian Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 2004; 87 (9): 3029-3037. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73435-9
31. Ding X, Zhang Z, Li X, Wang S, Wu X et al. Accuracy of genomic prediction for milk production traits in the Chinese Holstein population using a reference population consisting of cows. Journal of Dairy Science 2013; 96 (8): 5315-5323. doi: 10.3168/jds.2012-6194
32. Rolf MM, Garrick DJ, Fountain T, Ramey HR, Weaber RL et al. Comparison of bayesian models to estimate direct genomic values in multi-breed commercial beef cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 2015; 47 (23): 1-14. doi: 10.1186/s12711- 015-0106-8
33. Habier D, Fernando RL, Kızılkaya K, Garrick DJ. Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection. BMC Bioinformatics 2011; 12 (186): 1-12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105- 12-186
34. Pryce JE, Daetwyler HD. Designing dairy cattle breeding schemes under genomic selection: a review of international research. Animal Production Science 2012; 52 (3): 107-114. doi: 10.1071/AN11098
35. Meuwissen THE. Accuracy of breeding values of ‘unrelated’ individuals predicted by dense SNP genotyping. Genetics Selection Evolution 2009; 41 (35): 1-9. doi: 10.1186/1297- 9686-41-35