Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Anim Breed Genet ; 133(5): 334-46, 2016 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27357473

ABSTRACT

Most genomic prediction studies fit only additive effects in models to estimate genomic breeding values (GEBV). However, if dominance genetic effects are an important source of variation for complex traits, accounting for them may improve the accuracy of GEBV. We investigated the effect of fitting dominance and additive effects on the accuracy of GEBV for eight egg production and quality traits in a purebred line of brown layers using pedigree or genomic information (42K single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel). Phenotypes were corrected for the effect of hatch date. Additive and dominance genetic variances were estimated using genomic-based [genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP)-REML and BayesC] and pedigree-based (PBLUP-REML) methods. Breeding values were predicted using a model that included both additive and dominance effects and a model that included only additive effects. The reference population consisted of approximately 1800 animals hatched between 2004 and 2009, while approximately 300 young animals hatched in 2010 were used for validation. Accuracy of prediction was computed as the correlation between phenotypes and estimated breeding values of the validation animals divided by the square root of the estimate of heritability in the whole population. The proportion of dominance variance to total phenotypic variance ranged from 0.03 to 0.22 with PBLUP-REML across traits, from 0 to 0.03 with GBLUP-REML and from 0.01 to 0.05 with BayesC. Accuracies of GEBV ranged from 0.28 to 0.60 across traits. Inclusion of dominance effects did not improve the accuracy of GEBV, and differences in their accuracies between genomic-based methods were small (0.01-0.05), with GBLUP-REML yielding higher prediction accuracies than BayesC for egg production, egg colour and yolk weight, while BayesC yielded higher accuracies than GBLUP-REML for the other traits. In conclusion, fitting dominance effects did not impact accuracy of genomic prediction of breeding values in this population.


Subject(s)
Breeding , Chickens/genetics , Animals , Bayes Theorem , Chickens/classification , Genes, Dominant , Pedigree , Phenotype , Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide
2.
J Anim Breed Genet ; 133(3): 167-79, 2016 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26776363

ABSTRACT

There is an increasing interest in using whole-genome sequence data in genomic selection breeding programmes. Prediction of breeding values is expected to be more accurate when whole-genome sequence is used, because the causal mutations are assumed to be in the data. We performed genomic prediction for the number of eggs in white layers using imputed whole-genome resequence data including ~4.6 million SNPs. The prediction accuracies based on sequence data were compared with the accuracies from the 60 K SNP panel. Predictions were based on genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) as well as a Bayesian variable selection model (BayesC). Moreover, the prediction accuracy from using different types of variants (synonymous, non-synonymous and non-coding SNPs) was evaluated. Genomic prediction using the 60 K SNP panel resulted in a prediction accuracy of 0.74 when GBLUP was applied. With sequence data, there was a small increase (~1%) in prediction accuracy over the 60 K genotypes. With both 60 K SNP panel and sequence data, GBLUP slightly outperformed BayesC in predicting the breeding values. Selection of SNPs more likely to affect the phenotype (i.e. non-synonymous SNPs) did not improve the accuracy of genomic prediction. The fact that sequence data were based on imputation from a small number of sequenced animals may have limited the potential to improve the prediction accuracy. A small reference population (n = 1004) and possible exclusion of many causal SNPs during quality control can be other possible reasons for limited benefit of sequence data. We expect, however, that the limited improvement is because the 60 K SNP panel was already sufficiently dense to accurately determine the relationships between animals in our data.


Subject(s)
Chickens/genetics , Sequence Analysis, DNA/methods , Animals , Breeding , Female , Genome , Phenotype , Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide
3.
Heredity (Edinb) ; 113(6): 503-13, 2014 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25074573

ABSTRACT

Genomic selection (GS) is a DNA-based method of selecting for quantitative traits in animal and plant breeding, and offers a potentially superior alternative to traditional breeding methods that rely on pedigree and phenotype information. Using a 60 K SNP chip with markers spaced throughout the entire chicken genome, we compared the impact of GS and traditional BLUP (best linear unbiased prediction) selection methods applied side-by-side in three different lines of egg-laying chickens. Differences were demonstrated between methods, both at the level and genomic distribution of allele frequency changes. In all three lines, the average allele frequency changes were larger with GS, 0.056 0.064 and 0.066, compared with BLUP, 0.044, 0.045 and 0.036 for lines B1, B2 and W1, respectively. With BLUP, 35 selected regions (empirical P < 0.05) were identified across the three lines. With GS, 70 selected regions were identified. Empirical thresholds for local allele frequency changes were determined from gene dropping, and differed considerably between GS (0.167-0.198) and BLUP (0.105-0.126). Between lines, the genomic regions with large changes in allele frequencies showed limited overlap. Our results show that GS applies selection pressure much more locally than BLUP, resulting in larger allele frequency changes. With these results, novel insights into the nature of selection on quantitative traits have been gained and important questions regarding the long-term impact of GS are raised. The rapid changes to a part of the genetic architecture, while another part may not be selected, at least in the short term, require careful consideration, especially when selection occurs before phenotypes are observed.


Subject(s)
Chickens/genetics , Gene Frequency , Genetic Variation , Models, Genetic , Pedigree , Alleles , Animals , Breeding , Female , Genetic Drift , Genotype , Male , Phenotype , Selection, Genetic
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...