Optimization of Training Set in Genome Wide Association Study and Genomic Evaluation

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Animal department

2 Assistant professor of animal science/ Department of Animal Science, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Animal Breeding and Genetic, University of Zabol/Department of Animal Science, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran

4 Department of Animal Science, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran Department of Bioinformatics, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran

5 1- Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada 2- HiggsGene Solutions Inc., Guelph, Canada

Abstract

The optimization of the reference population in genomic evaluation plays an important role in livestock breeding, because of its potential impact on the accuracy of estimating the marker effects and genomic breeding values. In the present study, seven different train set selection methods including selection of all, selection of the highest and lowest performances, random selection, selection of individuals with the most and least marker and QTL similarity were evaluated. In genome wide association study selection of all as train set detected common SNPs which make a high variation on the trait. However selective train set was just reported rare SNPs with a major effect on the trait. In genomic selection simultaneous use of high-density markers and selective train set in comparison with low-density and selection of all as train set reduced accuracy, but did not change the ranking of animals. There was also an interaction between train set selection method and generation (P≤0.0134) as well as the linkage disequilibrium (P≤ 2e-16). In general, selection of all animals as a train set resulted in higher accuracy compared to six selective train set methods. There were no differences between the methods of selecting train set in populations with a low effective size (r2 = 0.255, Ne =100), but in populations with a high effective size (r2 = 0.086, Ne =400) methods, with different accuracy predicted genomic breeding values. The highest and lowest accuracy were respectively belonged to most QTL and marker similarity methods.

Keywords

References

Ansari-Mahyari, S., Sørensen, A. C., Lund, M. S., Thomsen, H., & Berg, P. (2008). Across-Family Marker-Assisted Selection Using Selective Genotyping Strategies in Dairy Cattle Breeding Schemes. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(4), 1628–1639. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0613
Blonk, R.J.W., Komen, J. and van Arendonk, J.A.M., (2010). Minimizing genotyping in breeding programs with natural mating. World Congress on Genetic Applied to Livestock Production, Leipzig, Germany, 195, 2–7.
Boligon, A. A., Long, N., Albuquerque, L. G., Weigel, K. A., Gianola, D., & osa, G. J. M. (2012). Comparison of selective genotyping strategies for prediction of breeding values in a population undergoing selection. Journal of Animal Science, 90(13), 4716–4722. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-4857
Hayes, B. J., Bowman, P. J., Chamberlain, A. J., & Goddard, M. E. (2009). Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges. Journal of Dairy Science, 92(2), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1646
Hill, W. G., & Robertson, A. (1968). Linkage disequilibrium in finite populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 38(6), 226–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01245622
Hu, Z. L., Park, C. A., Wu, X. L., & Reecy, J. M. (2013). Animal QTLdb: An improved database tool for livestock animal QTL/association data dissemination in the post-genome era. Nucleic Acids Research, 41(D1), 871–879. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1150
In: https://www.animalgenome.org/cgi-bin/QTLdb/OA/index
Jannink, J. L. (2005). Selective phenotyping to accurately map quantitative trait loci. Crop Science, 45(3), 901–908. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.0278
Jiménez-Montero, J. A., González-Recio, O., & Alenda, R. (2012). Genotyping strategies for genomic selection in small dairy cattle populations. Animal, 6(8), 1216–1224. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112000341
Jin, C., Lan, H., Attie, A. D., Churchill, G. A., Bulutuglo, D., & Yandell, B. S. (2004). Selective phenotyping for increased efficiency in genetic mapping studies. Genetics, 168(4), 2285–2293. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.104.027524
Loberg, A. and Durr, J.W. (2009). Interbull survey on the use of genomic information. In: Proceedings of the Interbull technical workshop, Uppsala, Sweden, 39, 3–1
Lund, M. S., de Roos, A. P. W., de Vries, A. G., Druet, T., Ducrocq, V., Guillaume, F., Liu, Z., Schrooten, C., Su, G. (2010). Improving genomic prediction by EuroGenomics collaboration. In: 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Leipzig, Germany (p. 150). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-015-1047-4
Nishio, M., & Satoh, M. (2014). Impacts of genotyping strategies on long-term genetic response in genomic selection. Animal Science Journal, 85(5), 511–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.12184
Rupp, R., Mucha, S., Larroque, H., McEwan, J., & Conington, J. (2016). Genomic application in sheep and goat breeding. Animal Frontiers, 6(1), 39. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2016-0006
Safari, A., & Fogarty, N. M. (2003). Genetic parameters for sheep production traits: estimates from the literature. Technical Bulletin, NSW Agriculture, Australia., 49, 13–21. Retrieved from http://www.sheepcrc.org.au/files/pages/articles/publications--genetics/Genetic_Parameters_entire_report.pdf
Sargolzaei, M. (2014). SNP1101 User’s Guide. Version 1.0. HiggsGene Solutions Inc.
Sargolzaei, M., & Schenkel, F. S. (2009). QMSim: A large-scale genome simulator for livestock. Bioinformatics, 25(5), 680–681. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp045
Sargolzaei, M., Schaeffer, L. R., Wiggans, G. R., & Schenkel, F. S. (2014). Approximation of Reliability of Direct Genomic Breeding. In: 10th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Vancouver, Canada, August 17-22.
Su, G., Ma, P., Nielsen, U. S., Aamand, G. P., Wiggans, G., Guldbrandtsen, B., & Lund, M. S. (2016). Sharing reference data and including cows in the reference population improve genomic predictions in Danish Jersey. Animal, 10(6), 1067–1075. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115001792
Sun, Y., Wang, J., Crouch, J. H., & Xu, Y. (2010). Efficiency of selective genotyping for genetic analysis of complex traits and potential applications in crop improvement. Molecular Breeding, 26(3), 493–511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-010-9390-8
VanRaden, P. M., Van Tassell, C. P., Wiggans, G. R., Sonstegard, T. S., Schnabel, R. D., Taylor, J. F., & Schenkel, F. S. (2009). Invited Review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. Journal of Dairy Science, 92(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1514
Weigel, K. A., Van Tassell, C. P., O’Connell, J. R., VanRaden, P. M., & Wiggans, G. R. (2010). Prediction of unobserved single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes of Jersey cattle using reference panels and population-based imputation algorithms. Journal of Dairy Science, 93(5), 2229–2238. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2849
Wiggans, G.R., Sonstegard. T.S., VanRaden. P.M., Matukumalli, L.K., Schnabel. R.D.,Taylor, J.F., Chesnais. J.P., Schenkel, F. and Van, Tassell, C.P. (2008). Genomic evaluations in the United States and Canada: collaboration. In: Procedings of International Commitee of Animal Recording, Niagara Falls, NY, 6pp
Xing, C. and Xing, G. (2009). Power of selective genotyping in genome-wide association studies of quantitative traits. BMC Proceedings, 3(Suppl 7): S23. https://doi: 10.1186/1753-6561-3-S7-S23
Yoav, B. and Yosef, H. (1995). Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 57(1), 289-300.
Zhao, Y., Gowda, M., Longin, F. H., Würschum, T., Ranc, N., & Reif, J. C. (2012). Impact of selective genotyping in the training population on accuracy and bias of genomic selection. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 125(4), 707–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-012-1862-2
Animal Sciences Journal
Volume 33, Issue 126
June 2020
Pages 191-204

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics