scholarly journals The Effect of Integrating Genomic Information into Genetic Evaluations of Chinese Merino Sheep

Animals ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 569
Author(s):  
Chen Wei ◽  
Hanpeng Luo ◽  
Bingru Zhao ◽  
Kechuan Tian ◽  
Xixia Huang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rank Correlation ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Breeding Value ◽  
Genomic Information ◽  
Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Breeding Values ◽  
Merino Sheep ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased ◽  
Unbiased Prediction

Genomic evaluations are a method for improving the accuracy of breeding value estimation. This study aimed to compare estimates of genetic parameters and the accuracy of breeding values for wool traits in Merino sheep between pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction (PBLUP) and single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) using Bayesian inference. Data were collected from 28,391 yearlings of Chinese Merino sheep (classified in 1992–2018) at the Xinjiang Gonaisi Fine Wool Sheep-Breeding Farm, China. Subjectively-assessed wool traits, namely, spinning count (SC), crimp definition (CRIM), oil (OIL), and body size (BS), and objectively-measured traits, namely, fleece length (FL), greasy fleece weight (GFW), mean fiber diameter (MFD), crimp number (CN), and body weight pre-shearing (BWPS), were analyzed. The estimates of heritability for wool traits were low to moderate. The largest h2 values were observed for FL (0.277) and MFD (0.290) with ssGBLUP. The heritabilities estimated for wool traits with ssGBLUP were slightly higher than those obtained with PBLUP. The accuracies of breeding values were low to moderate, ranging from 0.362 to 0.573 for the whole population and from 0.318 to 0.676 for the genotyped subpopulation. The correlation between the estimated breeding values (EBVs) and genomic EBVs (GEBVs) ranged from 0.717 to 0.862 for the whole population, and the relative increase in accuracy when comparing EBVs with GEBVs ranged from 0.372% to 7.486% for these traits. However, in the genotyped population, the rank correlation between the estimates obtained with PBLUP and ssGBLUP was reduced to 0.525 to 0.769, with increases in average accuracy of 3.016% to 11.736% for the GEBVs in relation to the EBVs. Thus, genomic information could allow us to more accurately estimate the relationships between animals and improve estimates of heritability and the accuracy of breeding values by ssGBLUP.

scholarly journals Prediction of Rates of Inbreeding in Populations Selected on Best Linear Unbiased Prediction of Breeding Value

Genetics ◽  
2000 ◽  
Vol 156 (1) ◽  
pp. 361-373
Author(s):  
Piter Bijma ◽  
John A Woolliams
Keyword(s):  
Linear Model ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Breeding Value ◽  
Quadratic Model ◽  
Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Breeding Values ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased ◽  
Unbiased Prediction

Abstract Predictions for the rate of inbreeding (ΔF) in populations with discrete generations undergoing selection on best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) of breeding value were developed. Predictions were based on the concept of long-term genetic contributions using a recently established relationship between expected contributions and rates of inbreeding and a known procedure for predicting expected contributions. Expected contributions of individuals were predicted using a linear model, μi(x) = α βsi, where si denotes the selective advantage as a deviation from the contemporaries, which was the sum of the breeding values of the individual and the breeding values of its mates. The accuracy of predictions was evaluated for a wide range of population and genetic parameters. Accurate predictions were obtained for populations of 5–20 sires. For 20–80 sires, systematic underprediction of on average 11% was found, which was shown to be related to the goodness of fit of the linear model. Using simulation, it was shown that a quadratic model would give accurate predictions for those schemes. Furthermore, it was shown that, contrary to random selection, ΔF less than halved when the number of parents was doubled and that in specific cases ΔF may increase with the number of dams.

scholarly journals Genomic prediction using pooled data in a single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction framework

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johnna L Baller ◽  
Stephen D Kachman ◽  
Larry A Kuehn ◽  
Matthew L Spangler
Keyword(s):  
Phenotypic Variation ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Pool Size ◽  
Individual Data ◽  
Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Breeding Values ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased ◽  
Genetic Evaluations ◽  
Unbiased Prediction

Abstract Economically relevant traits are routinely collected within the commercial segments of the beef industry but are rarely included in genetic evaluations because of unknown pedigrees. Individual relationships could be resurrected with genomics, but this would be costly; therefore, pooling DNA and phenotypic data provide a cost-effective solution. Pedigree, phenotypic, and genomic data were simulated for a beef cattle population consisting of 15 generations. Genotypes mimicked a 50k marker panel (841 quantitative trait loci were located across the genome, approximately once per 3 Mb) and the phenotype was moderately heritable. Individuals from generation 15 were included in pools (observed genotype and phenotype were mean values of a group). Estimated breeding values (EBV) were generated from a single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction model. The effects of pooling strategy (random and minimizing or uniformly maximizing phenotypic variation within pools), pool size (1, 2, 10, 20, 50, 100, or no data from generation 15), and generational gaps of genotyping on EBV accuracy (correlation of EBV with true breeding values) were quantified. Greatest EBV accuracies of sires and dams were observed when there was no gap between genotyped parents and pooled offspring. The EBV accuracies resulting from pools were usually greater than no data from generation 15 regardless of sire or dam genotyping. Minimizing phenotypic variation increased EBV accuracy by 8% and 9% over random pooling and uniformly maximizing phenotypic variation, respectively. A pool size of 2 was the only scenario that did not significantly decrease EBV accuracy compared with individual data when pools were formed randomly or by uniformly maximizing phenotypic variation (P > 0.05). Pool sizes of 2, 10, 20, or 50 did not generally lead to statistical differences in EBV accuracy than individual data when pools were constructed to minimize phenotypic variation (P > 0.05). Largest numerical increases in EBV accuracy resulting from pooling compared with no data from generation 15 were seen with sires with prior low EBV accuracy (those born in generation 14). Pooling of any size led to larger EBV accuracies of the pools than individual data when minimizing phenotypic variation. Resulting EBV for the pools could be used to inform management decisions of those pools. Pooled genotyping to garner commercial-level phenotypes for genetic evaluations seems plausible although differences exist depending on pool size and pool formation strategy.

scholarly journals Core-dependent changes in genomic predictions using the Algorithm for Proven and Young in single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacy Misztal ◽  
Shogo Tsuruta ◽  
Ivan Pocrnic ◽  
Daniela Lourenco
Keyword(s):  
Prediction Accuracy ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Relationship Matrix ◽  
Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Breeding Values ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Genomic Predictions ◽  
Unbiased Prediction

Abstract Single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction with the Algorithm for Proven and Young (APY) is a popular method for large-scale genomic evaluations. With the APY algorithm, animals are designated as core or noncore, and the computing resources to create the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix (GRM) are reduced by inverting only a portion of that matrix for core animals. However, using different core sets of the same size causes fluctuations in genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) up to one additive standard deviation without affecting prediction accuracy. About 2% of the variation in the GRM is noise. In the recursion formula for APY, the error term modeling the noise is different for every set of core animals, creating changes in breeding values. While average changes are small, and correlations between breeding values estimated with different core animals are close to 1.0, based on the normal distribution theory, outliers can be several times bigger than the average. Tests included commercial datasets from beef and dairy cattle and from pigs. Beyond a certain number of core animals, the prediction accuracy did not improve, but fluctuations decreased with more animals. Fluctuations were much smaller than the possible changes based on prediction error variance. GEBVs change over time even for animals with no new data as genomic relationships ties all the genotyped animals, causing reranking of top animals. In contrast, changes in nongenomic models without new data are small. Also, GEBV can change due to details in the model, such as redefinition of contemporary groups or unknown parent groups. In particular, increasing the fraction of blending of the GRM with a pedigree relationship matrix from 5% to 20% caused changes in GEBV up to 0.45 SD, with a correlation of GEBV > 0.99. Fluctuations in genomic predictions are part of genomic evaluation models and are also present without the APY algorithm when genomic evaluations are computed with updated data. The best approach to reduce the impact of fluctuations in genomic evaluations is to make selection decisions not on individual animals with limited individual accuracy but on groups of animals with high average accuracy.

scholarly journals Genomic selection through single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction improves the accuracy of evaluation in Hanwoo cattle

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (10) ◽  
pp. 1544-1557
Author(s):  
Mi Na Park ◽  
Mahboob Alam ◽  
Sidong Kim ◽  
Byoungho Park ◽  
Seung Hwan Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genomic Selection ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Breeding Value ◽  
Eye Muscle ◽  
Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased ◽  
Increase In Accuracy ◽  
Unbiased Prediction

Objective: Genomic selection (GS) is becoming popular in animals’ genetic development. We, therefore, investigated the single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) as tool for GS, and compared its efficacy with the traditional pedigree BLUP (pedBLUP) method.Methods: A total of 9,952 males born between 1997 and 2018 under Hanwoo proven-bull selection program was studied. We analyzed body weight at 12 months and carcass weight (kg), backfat thickness, eye muscle area, and marbling score traits. About 7,387 bulls were genotyped using Illumina 50K BeadChip Arrays. Multiple-trait animal model analyses were performed using BLUPF90 software programs. Breeding value accuracy was calculated using two methods: i) Pearson’s correlation of genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) with EBV of all animals (rM1) and ii) correlation using inverse of coefficient matrix from the mixed-model equations (rM2). Then, we compared these accuracies by overall population, info-type (PHEN, phenotyped-only; GEN, genotyped-only; and PH+GEN, phenotyped and genotyped), and bull-types (YBULL, young male calves; CBULL, young candidate bulls; and PBULL, proven bulls).Results: The rM1 estimates in the study were between 0.90 and 0.96 among five traits. The rM1 estimates varied slightly by population and info-type, but noticeably by bull-type for traits. Generally average rM2 estimates were much smaller than rM1 (pedBLUP, 0.40 to0.44; ssGBLUP, 0.41 to 0.45) at population level. However, rM2 from both BLUP models varied noticeably across info-types and bull-types. The ssGBLUP estimates of rM2 in PHEN, GEN, and PH+ GEN ranged between 0.51 and 0.63, 0.66 and 0.70, and 0.68 and 0.73, respectively. In YBULL, CBULL, and PBULL, the rM2 estimates ranged between 0.54 and 0.57, 0.55 and 0.62, and 0.70 and 0.74, respectively. The pedBLUP based rM2 estimates were also relatively lower than ssGBLUP estimates. At the population level, we found an increase in accuracy by 2.0% to 4.5% among traits. Traits in PHEN were least influenced by ssGBLUP (0% to 2.0%), whereas the highest positive changes were in GEN (8.1% to 10.7%). PH+GEN also showed 6.5% to 8.5% increase in accuracy by ssGBLUP. However, the highest improvements were found in bull-types (YBULL, 21% to 35.7%; CBULL, 3.3% to 9.3%; PBULL, 2.8% to 6.1%).Conclusion: A noticeable improvement by ssGBLUP was observed in this study. Findings of differential responses to ssGBLUP by various bulls could assist in better selection decision making as well. We, therefore, suggest that ssGBLUP could be used for GS in Hanwoo provenbull evaluation program.

scholarly journals Domestic and Interbull information in the single step genomic evaluation of Holstein milk production

2014 ◽  
Vol 59 (No. 9) ◽  
pp. 409-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Přibyl ◽  
J. Bauer ◽  
P. Pešek ◽  
J. Přibylová ◽  
L. Vostrý ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Model ◽  
Milk Production ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Breeding Values ◽  
One Step ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased ◽  
Estimated Breeding Values ◽  
Unbiased Prediction

Estimated breeding values and genomic enhanced breeding values for milk production of young genotyped Holstein bulls were predicted using a conventional animal model, ridge regression genomic prediction procedure, genomic best linear unbiased prediction, single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction, and one-step blending procedures. For prediction, the nation-wide database of domestic Czech production records was combined with deregressed proofs from Interbull files through 2008, which had been transformed by multiple across country evaluation to reflect domestic production conditions. 1259 genotyped bulls had already been proven in 2008. Analyses were run that used Interbull values only for these genotyped bulls and used Interbull values for all available sires. Predictions were validated by comparing correlations of breeding value predictions with estimated breeding values and daughter-yield-deviations after progeny test in 2012 of 140 young genotyped bulls and their associated reliabilities. Combining domestic data with Interbull estimated breeding values improved prediction of both estimated breeding values and genomic enhanced breeding values. Prediction by animal model (traditional estimated breeding values) using only the domestic database had 0.29 validated reliability of prediction; whereas combining the nation-wide domestic database with all available deregressed proofs for genotyped and non-genotyped sires from Interbull resulted in reliability of 0.34, compared to 0.36 when using Interbull data only. The highest reliabilities were for predictions from the single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction procedure using combined data, or with all available deregressed proofs from Interbull only (one-step blending approach), which reached validated reliabilities for genomic enhanced breeding values predictions 0.53 and 0.54, respectively.  

Best linear unbiased prediction of clonal breeding values and genetic values from full-sib mating designs

2003 ◽  
Vol 33 (10) ◽  
pp. 2036-2043 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bin Xiang ◽  
Bailian Li
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Gain ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Breeding Value ◽  
Improvement Program ◽  
Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Breeding Values ◽  
Sib Mating ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased ◽  
Progeny Tests ◽  
Unbiased Prediction

Full-sib progeny tests with clonal replicates may provide better breeding value estimates and the greatest genetic gain in a tree improvement program. Clonal breeding values (CBV) that combine the family and within-family breeding values due to additive genetic effects can maximize the genetic gain for advanced generation breeding. Clonal genetic values (CGV) that further incorporate full-sib family specific combining ability due to nonadditive genetic effect can maximize gain for a deployment program with clonal propagation techniques. The best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) is the best statistical method for estimating both CBV and CGV because of its desirable statistical properties compared with the heritability-based gain calculation. A BLUP method for determining both the CBV and CGV for full-sib clonal progeny tests was proposed in this paper. The formulas for CBV and CGV were derived using general BLUP methodology, and formulas were derived for the calculations of their standard errors. An analytical method by using a standard statistical package (SAS PROC MIXED) was presented for CBV and CGV calculations from any full-sib mating designs.

scholarly journals Is it reasonable to use of a kinship matrix for best linear unbiased prediction?

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bongsong Kim
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Model ◽  
Linear Mixed Model ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Breeding Value ◽  
Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Breeding Values ◽  
Kinship Matrix ◽  
Combining Abilities ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased ◽  
Unbiased Prediction

AbstractThe linear mixed model (LMM) is characterized to account for the variance-covariance among entities in a population toward calculating the best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP). Animal and plant breeders widely use the LMM because it is perceived that the a BLUP estimate informs an estimated breeding value (EBV), so to speak a combining ability as a parent, obtained by relating each entity to his/her relatives using the variance-covariance. The LMM practice routinely substitutes an external kinship matrix for the variance-covariance. The challenge relevant to the LMM practice is the fact that it is unrealistic to validate the EBVs because the real breeding values are not measurable but conceptual. This unreality actually means that the EBVs are vague. Although some previous studies measured correlations between the EBVs and empirical combining abilities, they are not sufficient to remove the vagueness of EBVs because uncontrollable environmental factors might interfere with phenotypic observations for measuring the combining abilities. To overcome the challenge, this study scrutinized the soundness of the routine LMM practice from the mathematical perspective. As a result, it was demonstrated that the BLUP estimates resulting from the routine LMM practice mislead the breeding values. The genuine BLUP represents the arithmetic means of multiple phenotypic observations per each entity, given all phenotypic observations adjusted to the mean of zero.

A method for reducing inbreeding with Best Linear Unbiased Prediction

1993 ◽  
Vol 1993 ◽  
pp. 33-33
Author(s):  
B Grundy ◽  
WG Hill
Keyword(s):  
Best Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Breeding Value ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased Predictor ◽  
Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Genetic Merit ◽  
Selection Decisions ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased ◽  
Estimated Breeding Value ◽  
Commercial Environment ◽  
Unbiased Prediction

An optimum way of selecting animals is through a prediction of their genetic merit (estimated breeding value, EBV), which can be achieved using a best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) (Henderson, 1975). Selection decisions in a commercial environment, however, are rarely made solely on genetic merit but also on additional factors, an important example of which is to limit the accumulation of inbreeding. Comparison of rates of inbreeding under BLUP for a range of hentabilities highlights a trend of increasing inbreeding with decreasing heritability. It is therefore proposed that selection using a heritability which is artificially raised would yield lower rates of inbreeding than would otherwise be the case.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document