Non-additive Effects in Genomic Selection

Overview

Journal Front Genet

Date 2018 Mar 22

PMID 29559995

Citations 82

Authors

Luis Varona

Andres Legarra

Miguel A Toro

Zulma G Vitezica

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

In the last decade, genomic selection has become a standard in the genetic evaluation of livestock populations. However, most procedures for the implementation of genomic selection only consider the additive effects associated with SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) markers used to calculate the prediction of the breeding values of candidates for selection. Nevertheless, the availability of estimates of non-additive effects is of interest because: (i) they contribute to an increase in the accuracy of the prediction of breeding values and the genetic response; (ii) they allow the definition of mate allocation procedures between candidates for selection; and (iii) they can be used to enhance non-additive genetic variation through the definition of appropriate crossbreeding or purebred breeding schemes. This study presents a review of methods for the incorporation of non-additive genetic effects into genomic selection procedures and their potential applications in the prediction of future performance, mate allocation, crossbreeding, and purebred selection. The work concludes with a brief outline of some ideas for future lines of that may help the standard inclusion of non-additive effects in genomic selection.

Citing Articles

Whole-genome resequencing of Japanese large-sized tomato cultivars provides insights into the history of modern breeding.

Yamamoto E, Matsunaga H, Ohyama A, Nunome T, Yamaguchi H, Miyatake K Breed Sci. 2025; 74(4):344-353.

PMID: 39872322 PMC: 11769584. DOI: 10.1270/jsbbs.24004.

Genomic prediction accounting for dominance and epistatic genetic effects on litter size traits in Large White pigs.

Chen J, Dou T, Wu Z, Bai L, Xu M, Zhang Y J Anim Sci. 2025; 103.

PMID: 39774780 PMC: 11776020. DOI: 10.1093/jas/skaf004.

Optimizing drought tolerance in cassava through genomic selection.

da Costa W, Bandeira E Souza M, Azevedo C, Nascimento M, Morgante C, Borel J Front Plant Sci. 2024; 15:1483340.

PMID: 39737377 PMC: 11683140. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1483340.

SimpleMating: R-package for prediction and optimization of breeding crosses using genomic selection.

Peixoto M, Amadeu R, Bhering L, Ferrao L, Munoz P, Resende Jr M Plant Genome. 2024; 18(1):e20533.

PMID: 39604031 PMC: 11726409. DOI: 10.1002/tpg2.20533.

Modeling gene interactions in polygenic prediction via geometric deep learning.

Li H, Zeng J, Snyder M, Zhang S Genome Res. 2024; 35(1):178-187.

PMID: 39562137 PMC: 11789630. DOI: 10.1101/gr.279694.124.

References

Wellmann R, Bennewitz J . Bayesian models with dominance effects for genomic evaluation of quantitative traits. Genet Res (Camb). 2012; 94(1):21-37. DOI: 10.1017/S0016672312000018. View

Akdemir D, Jannink J . Locally epistatic genomic relationship matrices for genomic association and prediction. Genetics. 2015; 199(3):857-71. PMC: 4349077. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.114.173658. View

Ramayo-Caldas Y, Mach N, Lepage P, Levenez F, Denis C, Lemonnier G . Phylogenetic network analysis applied to pig gut microbiota identifies an ecosystem structure linked with growth traits. ISME J. 2016; 10(12):2973-2977. PMC: 5148198. DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2016.77. View

Tusell L, Perez-Rodriguez P, Forni S, Gianola D . Model averaging for genome-enabled prediction with reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces: a case study with pig litter size and wheat yield. J Anim Breed Genet. 2014; 131(2):105-15. DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12070. View

Sevillano C, Vandenplas J, Bastiaansen J, Calus M . Empirical determination of breed-of-origin of alleles in three-breed cross pigs. Genet Sel Evol. 2016; 48(1):55. PMC: 4973529. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-016-0234-9. View

Maki-Tanila A, Hill W . Influence of gene interaction on complex trait variation with multilocus models. Genetics. 2014; 198(1):355-67. PMC: 4174947. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.114.165282. View

Vitezica Z, Varona L, Elsen J, Misztal I, Herring W, Legarra A . Genomic BLUP including additive and dominant variation in purebreds and F1 crossbreds, with an application in pigs. Genet Sel Evol. 2016; 48:6. PMC: 4733284. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-016-0185-1. View

Verbyla K, Hayes B, Bowman P, Goddard M . Accuracy of genomic selection using stochastic search variable selection in Australian Holstein Friesian dairy cattle. Genet Res (Camb). 2009; 91(5):307-11. DOI: 10.1017/S0016672309990243. View

Aliloo H, Pryce J, Gonzalez-Recio O, Cocks B, Goddard M, Hayes B . Including nonadditive genetic effects in mating programs to maximize dairy farm profitability. J Dairy Sci. 2016; 100(2):1203-1222. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2016-11261. View

10.

de Los Campos G, Naya H, Gianola D, Crossa J, Legarra A, Manfredi E . Predicting quantitative traits with regression models for dense molecular markers and pedigree. Genetics. 2009; 182(1):375-85. PMC: 2674834. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.109.101501. View

11.

Sevillano C, Vandenplas J, Bastiaansen J, Bergsma R, Calus M . Genomic evaluation for a three-way crossbreeding system considering breed-of-origin of alleles. Genet Sel Evol. 2017; 49(1):75. PMC: 5653471. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-017-0350-1. View

12.

Hazel L . The Genetic Basis for Constructing Selection Indexes. Genetics. 1943; 28(6):476-90. PMC: 1209225. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/28.6.476. View

13.

VanRaden P . Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci. 2008; 91(11):4414-23. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2007-0980. View

14.

Dekkers J . Commercial application of marker- and gene-assisted selection in livestock: strategies and lessons. J Anim Sci. 2004; 82 E-Suppl:E313-328. DOI: 10.2527/2004.8213_supplE313x. View

15.

Duenk P, Calus M, Wientjes Y, Bijma P . Benefits of Dominance over Additive Models for the Estimation of Average Effects in the Presence of Dominance. G3 (Bethesda). 2017; 7(10):3405-3414. PMC: 5633389. DOI: 10.1534/g3.117.300113. View

16.

Akdemir D, Jannink J, Isidro-Sanchez J . Locally epistatic models for genome-wide prediction and association by importance sampling. Genet Sel Evol. 2017; 49(1):74. PMC: 5646165. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-017-0348-8. View

17.

Wellmann R, Bennewitz J . The contribution of dominance to the understanding of quantitative genetic variation. Genet Res (Camb). 2011; 93(2):139-54. DOI: 10.1017/S0016672310000649. View

18.

Saura M, Fernandez A, Varona L, Fernandez A, de Cara M, Barragan C . Detecting inbreeding depression for reproductive traits in Iberian pigs using genome-wide data. Genet Sel Evol. 2015; 47:1. PMC: 4297446. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-014-0081-5. View

19.

de Boer I, Hoeschele I . Genetic evaluation methods for populations with dominance and inbreeding. Theor Appl Genet. 2013; 86(2-3):245-58. DOI: 10.1007/BF00222086. View

20.

Reik W, Walter J . Genomic imprinting: parental influence on the genome. Nat Rev Genet. 2001; 2(1):21-32. DOI: 10.1038/35047554. View