Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Feb 19;42(1):5.
doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-42-5.

The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle

Affiliations

The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle

David Habier et al. Genet Sel Evol. .

Abstract

Background: The impact of additive-genetic relationships captured by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on the accuracy of genomic breeding values (GEBVs) has been demonstrated, but recent studies on data obtained from Holstein populations have ignored this fact. However, this impact and the accuracy of GEBVs due to linkage disequilibrium (LD), which is fairly persistent over generations, must be known to implement future breeding programs.

Materials and methods: The data set used to investigate these questions consisted of 3,863 German Holstein bulls genotyped for 54,001 SNPs, their pedigree and daughter yield deviations for milk yield, fat yield, protein yield and somatic cell score. A cross-validation methodology was applied, where the maximum additive-genetic relationship (amax) between bulls in training and validation was controlled. GEBVs were estimated by a Bayesian model averaging approach (BayesB) and an animal model using the genomic relationship matrix (G-BLUP). The accuracy of GEBVs due to LD was estimated by a regression approach using accuracy of GEBVs and accuracy of pedigree-based BLUP-EBVs.

Results: Accuracy of GEBVs obtained by both BayesB and G-BLUP decreased with decreasing amax for all traits analyzed. The decay of accuracy tended to be larger for G-BLUP and with smaller training size. Differences between BayesB and G-BLUP became evident for the accuracy due to LD, where BayesB clearly outperformed G-BLUP with increasing training size.

Conclusions: GEBV accuracy of current selection candidates varies due to different additive-genetic relationships relative to the training data. Accuracy of future candidates can be lower than reported in previous studies because information from close relatives will not be available when selection on GEBVs is applied. A Bayesian model averaging approach exploits LD information considerably better than G-BLUP and thus is the most promising method. Cross-validations should account for family structure in the data to allow for long-lasting genomic based breeding plans in animal and plant breeding.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Average r2 (mid-point) as a measure of linkage disequilibrium between syntenic SNP pairs against map distance in megabase (Mb) as well as standard deviation of mean r2 values from all 30 chromosomes (upper and lower deviation from the mid-point).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Box plots of additive-genetic relationships between bulls in training and validation for a maximum additive-genetic relationship, amax, of 0.6, 0.49, 0.249 and 0.1249.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Accuracy of EBVs, ρ, obtained by BayesB, G-BLUP and P-BLUP depending on the maximum additive-genetic relationship between bulls in training and validation, amax, for the traits milk yield, fat yield, protein yield and somatic cell score, based on 2,096 training bulls in each amax scenario.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Accuracy of EBVs, ρ, obtained by BayesB, G-BLUP and P-BLUP depending on the maximum additive-genetic relationship between bulls in training and validation, amax, for the traits milk yield, fat yield, protein yield and somatic cell score, based on 1,048 training bulls in each amax scenario.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics. 2001;157(4):1819–1829. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM. The Impact of Genetic Relationship Information on Genome-Assisted Breeding Values. Genetics. 2007;177(4):2389–2397. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gianola D, de los Campos G, Hill WG, Manfredi E, Fernando R. Additive Genetic Variability and the Bayesian Alphabet. Genetics. 2009;183:347–363. doi: 10.1534/genetics.109.103952. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Malécot G. Les Mathématiques de l'Hérédité. Paris: Masson et Cie. vi + 1948. p. 63.
    1. de Roos APW, Hayes BJ, Spelman RJ, Goddard ME. Linkage Disequilibrium and Persistence of Phase in Holstein-Friesian, Jersey and Angus Cattle. Genetics. 2008;179(3):1503–1512. doi: 10.1534/genetics.107.084301. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types