Prediction accuracy for a simulated maternally affected trait of beef cattle using different genomic evaluation models
- PMID: 23893997
- DOI: 10.2527/jas.2012-5826
Prediction accuracy for a simulated maternally affected trait of beef cattle using different genomic evaluation models
Abstract
Different methods for genomic evaluation were compared for accuracy and feasibility of evaluation using phenotypic, pedigree, and genomic information for a trait influenced by a maternal effect. A simulated population was constructed that included 15,800 animals in 5 generations. Genotypes from 45,000 SNP were available for 1,500 animals in the last 3 generations. Genotyped animals in the last generation had no phenotypes. Weaning weight data were simulated using an animal model with direct and maternal effects. Additive direct and maternal effects were considered either noncorrelated (formula in text) or negatively correlated (formula in text). Methods of analysis were traditional BLUP, BayesC using phenotypes and ignoring maternal effects (BayesCPR), BayesC using deregressed EBV (BayesCDEBV), and single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP). Whereas BayesCPR can be used when phenotypes of only genotyped animals are available, BayesCDEBV can be used when BLUP EBV of genotyped animals are available, and ssGBLUP is suitable when genotypes, phenotypes, and pedigrees are jointly available. For all genotyped and young genotyped animals, mean accuracies from BayesCPR and BayesCDEBV were lower than accuracies from BLUP for direct and maternal effects. The differences in mean accuracy were greater when genetic correlation was negative. Gains in accuracy were observed when ssGBLUP was compared with BLUP; for the direct (maternal) effect the average gain was 0.01 (0.02) for all genotyped animals and 0.03 (0.02) for young genotyped animals without phenotypes. Similar gains were observed for 0 and negative genetic correlation. Accuracy with BayesCPR was affected by ignoring phenotypes of nongenotyped animals and maternal effect and by not accounting for parent average. Accuracy with BayesCDEBV was affected by approximations needed for deregression, not accounting for parent average, and sequential rather than simultaneous fitting of genomic and nongenomic information. Whereas BayesCDEBV presented a considerable bias, especially for maternal effect, ssGBLUP was unbiased for both effects. The computing time was 1 s for BLUP, 44 s for ssGBLUP, and over 2,000 s for BayesC. Greatest computational efficiency and accuracy of genomic prediction for a maternally affected trait was obtained when information from all nongenotyped but related individuals was included and phenotypes, pedigree, and genotypes were available and considered jointly. Increasing the gain in accuracy of genomic predictions obtained by ssGBLUP over BLUP may require an increase in the number of genotyped animals.
Similar articles
-
Methods for genomic evaluation of a relatively small genotyped dairy population and effect of genotyped cow information in multiparity analyses.J Dairy Sci. 2014 Mar;97(3):1742-52. doi: 10.3168/jds.2013-6916. Epub 2014 Jan 25. J Dairy Sci. 2014. PMID: 24472123
-
Development of genomic predictions for Angus cattle in Brazil incorporating genotypes from related American sires.J Anim Sci. 2022 Feb 1;100(2):skac009. doi: 10.1093/jas/skac009. J Anim Sci. 2022. PMID: 35031806 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of alternative approaches to single-trait genomic prediction using genotyped and non-genotyped Hanwoo beef cattle.Genet Sel Evol. 2017 Jan 4;49(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s12711-016-0279-9. Genet Sel Evol. 2017. PMID: 28093065 Free PMC article.
-
Invited review: Unknown-parent groups and metafounders in single-step genomic BLUP.J Dairy Sci. 2022 Feb;105(2):923-939. doi: 10.3168/jds.2021-20293. Epub 2021 Nov 17. J Dairy Sci. 2022. PMID: 34799109 Review.
-
Current status of genomic evaluation.J Anim Sci. 2020 Apr 1;98(4):skaa101. doi: 10.1093/jas/skaa101. J Anim Sci. 2020. PMID: 32267923 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
First large-scale genomic prediction in the honey bee.Heredity (Edinb). 2023 May;130(5):320-328. doi: 10.1038/s41437-023-00606-9. Epub 2023 Mar 6. Heredity (Edinb). 2023. PMID: 36878945 Free PMC article.
-
Genomic Estimated Breeding Value of Milk Performance and Fertility Traits in the Russian Black-and-White Cattle Population.Acta Naturae. 2022 Jan-Mar;14(1):109-122. doi: 10.32607/actanaturae.11648. Acta Naturae. 2022. PMID: 35441049 Free PMC article.
-
Simulation studies to optimize genomic selection in honey bees.Genet Sel Evol. 2021 Jul 29;53(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s12711-021-00654-x. Genet Sel Evol. 2021. PMID: 34325663 Free PMC article.
-
Use of genomic information to exploit genotype-by-environment interactions for body weight of broiler chicken in bio-secure and production environments.Genet Sel Evol. 2019 Sep 18;51(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s12711-019-0493-3. Genet Sel Evol. 2019. PMID: 31533614 Free PMC article.
-
The impact of reducing the frequency of animals genotyped at higher density on imputation and prediction accuracies using ssGBLUP1.J Anim Sci. 2019 Jul 2;97(7):2780-2792. doi: 10.1093/jas/skz147. J Anim Sci. 2019. PMID: 31115442 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources