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
. 2012 Jan 24;44(1):3.
doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-44-3.

Long-term response to genomic selection: effects of estimation method and reference population structure for different genetic architectures

Affiliations

Long-term response to genomic selection: effects of estimation method and reference population structure for different genetic architectures

John W M Bastiaansen et al. Genet Sel Evol. .

Abstract

Background: Genomic selection has become an important tool in the genetic improvement of animals and plants. The objective of this study was to investigate the impacts of breeding value estimation method, reference population structure, and trait genetic architecture, on long-term response to genomic selection without updating marker effects.

Methods: Three methods were used to estimate genomic breeding values: a BLUP method with relationships estimated from genome-wide markers (GBLUP), a Bayesian method, and a partial least squares regression method (PLSR). A shallow (individuals from one generation) or deep reference population (individuals from five generations) was used with each method. The effects of the different selection approaches were compared under four different genetic architectures for the trait under selection. Selection was based on one of the three genomic breeding values, on pedigree BLUP breeding values, or performed at random. Selection continued for ten generations.

Results: Differences in long-term selection response were small. For a genetic architecture with a very small number of three to four quantitative trait loci (QTL), the Bayesian method achieved a response that was 0.05 to 0.1 genetic standard deviation higher than other methods in generation 10. For genetic architectures with approximately 30 to 300 QTL, PLSR (shallow reference) or GBLUP (deep reference) had an average advantage of 0.2 genetic standard deviation over the Bayesian method in generation 10. GBLUP resulted in 0.6% and 0.9% less inbreeding than PLSR and BM and on average a one third smaller reduction of genetic variance. Responses in early generations were greater with the shallow reference population while long-term response was not affected by reference population structure.

Conclusions: The ranking of estimation methods was different with than without selection. Under selection, applying GBLUP led to lower inbreeding and a smaller reduction of genetic variance while a similar response to selection was achieved. The reference population structure had a limited effect on long-term accuracy and response. Use of a shallow reference population, most closely related to the selection candidates, gave early benefits while in later generations, when marker effects were not updated, the estimation of marker effects based on a deeper reference population did not pay off.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Accuracy of estimated breeding values. Accuracy of MEBV in generations 0 to 10 averaged over 30 replicates; panels show results from genetic architectures with a low number of QTL of unequal variance (row 1), a low number of QTL of equal variance (row 2), a high number of QTL of unequal variance (row 3) and a high number of QTL of equal variance (row 4); estimation methods are BM (column 1), PLSR (column 2), GBLUP (column 3) and pedigree BLUP (column 4); levels of accuracy are shown for selection with training on phenotypes from one generation (shallow reference population, red circles) or from five generations (deep reference population, blue diamonds); accuracies of MEBV under RANDOM selection are shown as gray triangles; symbols for some scenarios may be hidden if values overlap.

References

    1. VanRaden PM, Van Tassell CP, Wiggans GR, Sonstegard TS, Schnabel RD, Taylor JF, Schenkel FS. Invited review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci. 2009;92:16–24. doi: 10.3168/jds.2008-1514. - DOI - PubMed
    1. De Roos APW, Schrooten C, Mullaart E, Van der Beek S, De Jong G, Voskamp W. Genomic selection at CRV. Interbull Bulletin. 2009;39:47–50.
    1. Gonzalez-Recio O, Gianola D, Long N, Weigel KA, Rosa GJM, Avendano S. Nonparametric methods for incorporating genomic information into genetic evaluations: an application to mortality in broilers. Genetics. 2008;178:2305–2313. doi: 10.1534/genetics.107.084293. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nielsen HM, Sonesson AK, Yazdi H, Meuwissen THE. Comparison of accuracy of genome-wide and BLUP breeding value estimates in sib based aquaculture breeding schemes. Aquaculture. 2009;289:259–264. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2009.01.027. - DOI
    1. Jannink JL. Dynamics of long-term genomic selection. Genet Sel Evol. 2010;42:35. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-42-35. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources