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
. 2017 Aug 10;18(1):604.
doi: 10.1186/s12864-017-4004-z.

Use of biological priors enhances understanding of genetic architecture and genomic prediction of complex traits within and between dairy cattle breeds

Affiliations

Use of biological priors enhances understanding of genetic architecture and genomic prediction of complex traits within and between dairy cattle breeds

Lingzhao Fang et al. BMC Genomics. .

Abstract

Background: A better understanding of the genetic architecture underlying complex traits (e.g., the distribution of causal variants and their effects) may aid in the genomic prediction. Here, we hypothesized that the genomic variants of complex traits might be enriched in a subset of genomic regions defined by genes grouped on the basis of "Gene Ontology" (GO), and that incorporating this independent biological information into genomic prediction models might improve their predictive ability.

Results: Four complex traits (i.e., milk, fat and protein yields, and mastitis) together with imputed sequence variants in Holstein (HOL) and Jersey (JER) cattle were analysed. We first carried out a post-GWAS analysis in a HOL training population to assess the degree of enrichment of the association signals in the gene regions defined by each GO term. We then extended the genomic best linear unbiased prediction model (GBLUP) to a genomic feature BLUP (GFBLUP) model, including an additional genomic effect quantifying the joint effect of a group of variants located in a genomic feature. The GBLUP model using a single random effect assumes that all genomic variants contribute to the genomic relationship equally, whereas GFBLUP attributes different weights to the individual genomic relationships in the prediction equation based on the estimated genomic parameters. Our results demonstrate that the immune-relevant GO terms were more associated with mastitis than milk production, and several biologically meaningful GO terms improved the prediction accuracy with GFBLUP for the four traits, as compared with GBLUP. The improvement of the genomic prediction between breeds (the average increase across the four traits was 0.161) was more apparent than that it was within the HOL (the average increase across the four traits was 0.020).

Conclusions: Our genomic feature modelling approaches provide a framework to simultaneously explore the genetic architecture and genomic prediction of complex traits by taking advantage of independent biological knowledge.

Keywords: Dairy cattle; Gene ontology; Genetic architecture; Genomic feature model; Genomic prediction; Mastitis; Milk production; Post-GWAS.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

No animal experiments were performed in this study, and ethics committee approval was therefore not required. References are provided where animal data were used.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Comparisons of enrichment degrees of association signals between milk production and mastitis in Gene Ontology (GO) super-families in the Holstein (HOL) training population. Each point is a GO term. –log10 P is from post-GWAS analysis. The significant levels were determined on the basis of paired Student’s t-test: “**” means P < 0.01, “*” means P < 0.05, “о” means P ≤ 0.1, “N.S” means P ≥ 0.1
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Comparisons of enrichment degree of association signals based on post-GWAS and the changes (∆r) in prediction accuracy with GFBLUP for all 449 Gene Ontology (GO) terms across the four traits. Each point is a GO term; −log10 P in the y axis is based on post-GWAS analysis in the HOL training population; r is the Pearson correlation, and P is determined with the correlation test

References

    1. VanRaden P, Van Tassell C, Wiggans G, Sonstegard T, Schnabel R, Taylor J, Schenkel F. Invited review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci. 2009;92(1):16–24. doi: 10.3168/jds.2008-1514. - DOI - PubMed
    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. De Roos A, Hayes B, Goddard M. Reliability of genomic predictions across multiple populations. Genetics. 2009;183(4):1545–1553. doi: 10.1534/genetics.109.104935. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AC, Verbyla K, Goddard ME. Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multi-breed dairy cattle populations. Genet Sel Evol. 2009;41:51. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-41-51. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Daetwyler HD, Calus MP, Pong-Wong R, de los Campos G, Hickey JM. Genomic prediction in animals and plants: simulation of data, validation, reporting, and benchmarking. Genetics. 2013;193(2):347–365. doi: 10.1534/genetics.112.147983. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources