Genomic Prediction of Carcass Traits Using Different Haplotype Block Partitioning Methods in Beef Cattle

Overview

Journal Evol Appl

Specialty Biology

Date 2022 Dec 21

PMID 36540636

Authors

Hongwei Li

Zezhao Wang

Lei Xu

Qian Li

Han Gao

Haoran Ma

Wentao Cai

Yan Chen

Xue Gao

Lupei Zhang

Huijiang Gao

Bo Zhu

Lingyang Xu

Junya Li

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Genomic prediction (GP) based on haplotype alleles can capture quantitative trait loci (QTL) effects and increase predictive ability because the haplotypes are expected to be in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with QTL. In this study, we constructed haploblocks using LD-based and the fixed number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (fixed-SNP) methods with Illumina BovineHD chip in beef cattle. To evaluate the performance of different haplotype block partitioning methods, we constructed haploblocks based on LD thresholds (from > 0.2 to > 0.8) and the number of fixed-SNPs (5, 10, 20). The performance of predictive methods for three carcass traits including liveweight (LW), dressing percentage (DP), and longissimus dorsi muscle weight (LDMW) was evaluated using three approaches (GBLUP and BayesB model based on the SNP, GBLUP, and BayesBH models based on the haploblock, and GBLUP+GBLUP and BayesBH+BayesB models based on the combined haploblock and the nonblocked SNPs, which were located between blocks). In this study, we found the accuracies of LD-based and fixed-SNP haplotype Bayesian methods outperformed the Bayesian models (up to 8.54 ± 7.44% and 5.74 ± 2.95%, respectively). GBLUP showed a high improvement (up to 11.29 ± 9.87%) compared with GBLUP. The Bayesian models have higher accuracies than BLUP models in most scenarios. The average computing time of the BayesBH+BayesB model can reduce by 29.3% compared with the BayesB model. The prediction accuracies using the LD-based haplotype method showed higher improvements than the fixed-SNP haplotype method. In addition, to avoid the influence of rare haplotypes generated from haplotype construction, we compared the performance of GP by filtering four types of minor haplotype allele frequency (MHAF) (0.01, 0.025, 0.05, and 0.1) under different conditions (LD levels were set at > 0.3, and the fixed number of SNPs was 5). We found the optimal MHAF threshold for LW was 0.01, and the optimal MHAF threshold for DP and LDMW was 0.025.

Citing Articles

Improvement of the accuracy of breeding value prediction for egg production traits in Muscovy duck using low-coverage whole-genome sequence data.

Ye H, Ji C, Liu X, Bello S, Guo L, Fang X Poult Sci. 2025; 104(2):104812.

PMID: 39817986 PMC: 11786738. DOI: 10.1016/j.psj.2025.104812.

Haplotype blocks for genomic prediction: a comparative evaluation in multiple crop datasets.

Weber S, Frisch M, Snowdon R, Voss-Fels K Front Plant Sci. 2023; 14:1217589.

PMID: 37731980 PMC: 10507710. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1217589.

Genomic prediction with haplotype blocks in wheat.

Difabachew Y, Frisch M, Langstroff A, Stahl A, Wittkop B, Snowdon R Front Plant Sci. 2023; 14:1168547.

PMID: 37229104 PMC: 10203549. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1168547.

Genomic prediction of carcass traits using different haplotype block partitioning methods in beef cattle.

Li H, Wang Z, Xu L, Li Q, Gao H, Ma H Evol Appl. 2022; 15(12):2028-2042.

PMID: 36540636 PMC: 9753827. DOI: 10.1111/eva.13491.

References

Da Y . Multi-allelic haplotype model based on genetic partition for genomic prediction and variance component estimation using SNP markers. BMC Genet. 2015; 16:144. PMC: 4683770. DOI: 10.1186/s12863-015-0301-1. View

Calus M, Meuwissen T, de Roos A, Veerkamp R . Accuracy of genomic selection using different methods to define haplotypes. Genetics. 2008; 178(1):553-61. PMC: 2206101. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.107.080838. View

Hess M, Druet T, Hess A, Garrick D . Fixed-length haplotypes can improve genomic prediction accuracy in an admixed dairy cattle population. Genet Sel Evol. 2017; 49(1):54. PMC: 5494768. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-017-0329-y. View

Chang C, Chow C, Tellier L, Vattikuti S, Purcell S, Lee J . Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. Gigascience. 2015; 4:7. PMC: 4342193. DOI: 10.1186/s13742-015-0047-8. View

Druet T, Georges M . A hidden markov model combining linkage and linkage disequilibrium information for haplotype reconstruction and quantitative trait locus fine mapping. Genetics. 2009; 184(3):789-98. PMC: 2845346. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.109.108431. View

OConnell J, Gurdasani D, Delaneau O, Pirastu N, Ulivi S, Cocca M . A general approach for haplotype phasing across the full spectrum of relatedness. PLoS Genet. 2014; 10(4):e1004234. PMC: 3990520. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004234. View

Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira M, Bender D . PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet. 2007; 81(3):559-75. PMC: 1950838. DOI: 10.1086/519795. View

Habier D, Tetens J, Seefried F, Lichtner P, Thaller G . The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle. Genet Sel Evol. 2010; 42:5. PMC: 2838754. DOI: 10.1186/1297-9686-42-5. View

Curtis D . Comparison of artificial neural network analysis with other multimarker methods for detecting genetic association. BMC Genet. 2007; 8:49. PMC: 1940019. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2156-8-49. View

10.

Druet T, Georges M . LINKPHASE3: an improved pedigree-based phasing algorithm robust to genotyping and map errors. Bioinformatics. 2015; 31(10):1677-9. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu859. View

11.

Hayes B, Chamberlain A, McPartlan H, Macleod I, Sethuraman L, Goddard M . Accuracy of marker-assisted selection with single markers and marker haplotypes in cattle. Genet Res. 2008; 89(4):215-20. DOI: 10.1017/S0016672307008865. View

12.

Calus M, Meuwissen T, Windig J, Knol E, Schrooten C, Vereijken A . Effects of the number of markers per haplotype and clustering of haplotypes on the accuracy of QTL mapping and prediction of genomic breeding values. Genet Sel Evol. 2009; 41:11. PMC: 3225874. DOI: 10.1186/1297-9686-41-11. View

13.

Zondervan K, Cardon L . The complex interplay among factors that influence allelic association. Nat Rev Genet. 2004; 5(2):89-100. DOI: 10.1038/nrg1270. View

14.

North B, Sham P, Knight J, Martin E, Curtis D . Investigation of the ability of haplotype association and logistic regression to identify associated susceptibility loci. Ann Hum Genet. 2006; 70(Pt 6):893-906. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-1809.2006.00301.x. View

15.

Wang X, Miao J, Chang T, Xia J, An B, Li Y . Evaluation of GBLUP, BayesB and elastic net for genomic prediction in Chinese Simmental beef cattle. PLoS One. 2019; 14(2):e0210442. PMC: 6394919. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210442. View

16.

Browning S, Browning B . Haplotype phasing: existing methods and new developments. Nat Rev Genet. 2011; 12(10):703-14. PMC: 3217888. DOI: 10.1038/nrg3054. View

17.

Rinaldo A, Bacanu S, Devlin B, Sonpar V, Wasserman L, Roeder K . Characterization of multilocus linkage disequilibrium. Genet Epidemiol. 2005; 28(3):193-206. DOI: 10.1002/gepi.20056. View

18.

Xu L, Gao N, Wang Z, Xu L, Liu Y, Chen Y . Incorporating Genome Annotation Into Genomic Prediction for Carcass Traits in Chinese Simmental Beef Cattle. Front Genet. 2020; 11:481. PMC: 7243208. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00481. View

19.

Cuyabano B, Su G, Lund M . Selection of haplotype variables from a high-density marker map for genomic prediction. Genet Sel Evol. 2015; 47:61. PMC: 4522081. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-015-0143-3. View

20.

Li H, Wang Z, Xu L, Li Q, Gao H, Ma H . Genomic prediction of carcass traits using different haplotype block partitioning methods in beef cattle. Evol Appl. 2022; 15(12):2028-2042. PMC: 9753827. DOI: 10.1111/eva.13491. View