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
Review
. 2018 Mar 6:9:78.
doi: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00078. eCollection 2018.

Non-additive Effects in Genomic Selection

Affiliations
Review

Non-additive Effects in Genomic Selection

Luis Varona et al. Front Genet. .

Abstract

In the last decade, genomic selection has become a standard in the genetic evaluation of livestock populations. However, most procedures for the implementation of genomic selection only consider the additive effects associated with SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) markers used to calculate the prediction of the breeding values of candidates for selection. Nevertheless, the availability of estimates of non-additive effects is of interest because: (i) they contribute to an increase in the accuracy of the prediction of breeding values and the genetic response; (ii) they allow the definition of mate allocation procedures between candidates for selection; and (iii) they can be used to enhance non-additive genetic variation through the definition of appropriate crossbreeding or purebred breeding schemes. This study presents a review of methods for the incorporation of non-additive genetic effects into genomic selection procedures and their potential applications in the prediction of future performance, mate allocation, crossbreeding, and purebred selection. The work concludes with a brief outline of some ideas for future lines of that may help the standard inclusion of non-additive effects in genomic selection.

Keywords: crossbreeding; dominance; epistasis; genetic evaluation; genomic selection.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Acevedo C. F., de Resende M. D. V., Silva F. F., Viana J. M. S., Valente M. S. F., Resende M. F. R., et al. . (2015). Ridge, Lasso and Bayesian additive-dominance genomic models. BMC Genetics 16:105. 10.1186/s12863-015-0264-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aguilar I., Misztal I., Johnson D. L., Legarra A., Tsuruta S., Lawlor T. J. (2010). Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. J. Dairy Sci. 93, 743–752. 10.3168/jds.2009-2730 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Akdemir D., Jannick J. (2015). Locally epistatic genomic relationships matrices for genomic association and prediction. Genetics 199, 857–871. 10.1534/genetics.114.173658 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Akdemir D., Jannick J., Isidro-Sanchez J. (2017). Locally epistatic models for genome-wide prediction and association by importance sampling. Genet. Sel. Evol. 49:74. 10.1186/s12711-017-0348-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Aliloo H., Pryce J. E., González-Recio O., Cocks B. G., Hayes B. J. (2016). Accounting for dominance to improve genomic evaluations of dairy cows for fertility and milk production traits. Genet. Sel. Evol. 48:186. 10.1186/s12711-016-0186-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources