Genomic Prediction Accuracies for Growth and Carcass Traits in a Brangus Heifer Population

Overview

Journal Animals (Basel)

Date 2023 Apr 13

PMID 37048528

Authors

Sunday O Peters

Kadir Kizilkaya

Mahmut Sinecen

Burcu Mestav

Aranganoor K Thiruvenkadan

Milton G Thomas

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The predictive abilities and accuracies of genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and the Bayesian (BayesA, BayesB, BayesC and Lasso) genomic selection (GS) methods for economically important growth (birth, weaning, and yearling weights) and carcass (depth of rib fat, apercent intramuscular fat and longissimus muscle area) traits were characterized by estimating the linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure in Brangus heifers using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) markers. Sharp declines in LD were observed as distance among SNP markers increased. The application of the GBLUP and the Bayesian methods to obtain the GEBV for growth and carcass traits within k-means and random clusters showed that k-means and random clustering had quite similar heritability estimates, but the Bayesian methods resulted in the lower estimates of heritability between 0.06 and 0.21 for growth and carcass traits compared with those between 0.21 and 0.35 from the GBLUP methodologies. Although the prediction ability of the GBLUP and the Bayesian methods were quite similar for growth and carcass traits, the Bayesian methods overestimated the accuracies of GEBV because of the lower estimates of heritability of growth and carcass traits. However, GBLUP resulted in accuracy of GEBV for growth and carcass traits that parallels previous reports.

References

Ge F, Jia C, Bao P, Wu X, Liang C, Yan P . Accuracies of Genomic Prediction for Growth Traits at Weaning and Yearling Ages in Yak. Animals (Basel). 2020; 10(10). PMC: 7650705. DOI: 10.3390/ani10101793. View

Clark S, Hickey J, van der Werf J . Different models of genetic variation and their effect on genomic evaluation. Genet Sel Evol. 2011; 43:18. PMC: 3114710. DOI: 10.1186/1297-9686-43-18. View

Habier D, Fernando R, Dekkers J . The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics. 2007; 177(4):2389-97. PMC: 2219482. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.107.081190. View

Ostersen T, Christensen O, Henryon M, Nielsen B, Su G, Madsen P . Deregressed EBV as the response variable yield more reliable genomic predictions than traditional EBV in pure-bred pigs. Genet Sel Evol. 2011; 43:38. PMC: 3354418. DOI: 10.1186/1297-9686-43-38. View

Sun X, Habier D, Fernando R, Garrick D, Dekkers J . Genomic breeding value prediction and QTL mapping of QTLMAS2010 data using Bayesian Methods. BMC Proc. 2011; 5 Suppl 3:S13. PMC: 3103198. DOI: 10.1186/1753-6561-5-S3-S13. View

Wimmer V, Albrecht T, Auinger H, Schon C . synbreed: a framework for the analysis of genomic prediction data using R. Bioinformatics. 2012; 28(15):2086-7. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts335. 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

Lu D, Sargolzaei M, Kelly M, Li C, Vander Voort G, Wang Z . Linkage disequilibrium in Angus, Charolais, and Crossbred beef cattle. Front Genet. 2012; 3:152. PMC: 3418579. DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2012.00152. View

Crossa J, de Los Campos G, Perez P, Gianola D, Burgueno J, Araus J . Prediction of genetic values of quantitative traits in plant breeding using pedigree and molecular markers. Genetics. 2010; 186(2):713-24. PMC: 2954475. DOI: 10.1534/genetics.110.118521. View

10.

Hayes B, Bowman P, Chamberlain A, Verbyla K, Goddard M . Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multi-breed dairy cattle populations. Genet Sel Evol. 2009; 41:51. PMC: 2791750. DOI: 10.1186/1297-9686-41-51. View

11.

Daetwyler H, Kemper K, van der Werf J, Hayes B . Components of the accuracy of genomic prediction in a multi-breed sheep population. J Anim Sci. 2012; 90(10):3375-84. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2011-4557. View

12.

Esfandyari H, Sorensen A, Bijma P . A crossbred reference population can improve the response to genomic selection for crossbred performance. Genet Sel Evol. 2015; 47:76. PMC: 4587753. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-015-0155-z. View

13.

El Hou A, Rocha D, Venot E, Blanquet V, Philippe R . Long-range linkage disequilibrium in French beef cattle breeds. Genet Sel Evol. 2021; 53(1):63. PMC: 8306006. DOI: 10.1186/s12711-021-00657-8. View

14.

Zhou L, Mrode R, Zhang S, Zhang Q, Li B, Liu J . Factors affecting GEBV accuracy with single-step Bayesian models. Heredity (Edinb). 2017; 120(2):100-109. PMC: 5837114. DOI: 10.1038/s41437-017-0010-9. View

15.

Villumsen T, Janss L, Lund M . The importance of haplotype length and heritability using genomic selection in dairy cattle. J Anim Breed Genet. 2009; 126(1):3-13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2008.00747.x. View

16.

Chen L, Vinsky M, Li C . Accuracy of predicting genomic breeding values for carcass merit traits in Angus and Charolais beef cattle. Anim Genet. 2014; 46(1):55-9. DOI: 10.1111/age.12238. View

17.

Colombani C, Legarra A, Fritz S, Guillaume F, Croiseau P, Ducrocq V . Application of Bayesian least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and BayesCπ methods for genomic selection in French Holstein and Montbéliarde breeds. J Dairy Sci. 2012; 96(1):575-91. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2011-5225. View

18.

Luna-Nevarez P, Bailey D, Bailey C, Vanleeuwen D, Enns R, Silver G . Growth characteristics, reproductive performance, and evaluation of their associative relationships in Brangus cattle managed in a Chihuahuan Desert production system1. J Anim Sci. 2010; 88(5):1891-904. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2009-2541. View

19.

Hayes B, Bowman P, Chamberlain A, Goddard M . Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. J Dairy Sci. 2009; 92(2):433-43. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2008-1646. View

20.

Fortes M, Snelling W, Reverter A, Nagaraj S, Lehnert S, Hawken R . Gene network analyses of first service conception in Brangus heifers: use of genome and trait associations, hypothalamic-transcriptome information, and transcription factors. J Anim Sci. 2012; 90(9):2894-906. DOI: 10.2527/jas.2011-4601. View