Animal Bioscience

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison on genomic prediction using pedigree BLUP and single step GBLUP through the Hanwoo full-sib family

  • Eun-Ho Kim (Department of Animal Science, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Ho-Chan Kang (Department of Animal Science and Biotechnology, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Cheol-Hyun Myung (Department of Animal Science, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Ji-Yeong Kim (Department of Animal Science, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Du-Won Sun (Gyeongnam Animal Science and Technology, Gyeongsang National University) ;
  • Doo-Ho Lee (Department of Animal Science and Biotechnology, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Seung-Hwan Lee (Department of Animal Science and Biotechnology, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Hyun-Tae Lim (Department of Animal Science, Gyeongsang National University)
  • Received : 2022.08.26
  • Accepted : 2023.03.16
  • Published : 2023.09.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: When evaluating individuals with the same parent and no phenotype by pedigree best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP), it is difficult to explain carcass grade difference and select individuals because they have the same value in pedigree BLUP (PBLUP). However, single step GBLUP (ssGBLUP), which can estimate the breeding value suitable for the individual by adding genotype, is more accurate than the existing method. Methods: The breeding value and accuracy were estimated with pedigree BLUP and ssGBLUP using pedigree and genotype of 408 Hanwoo cattle from 16 families with the same parent among siblings produced by fertilized egg transplantation. A total of 14,225 Hanwoo cattle with pedigree, genotype and phenotype were used as the reference population. PBLUP obtained estimated breeding value (EBV) using the pedigree of the test and reference populations, and ssGBLUP obtained genomic EBV (GEBV) after constructing and H-matrix by integrating the pedigree and genotype of the test and reference populations. Results: For all traits, the accuracy of GEBV using ssGBLUP is 0.18 to 0.20 higher than the accuracy of EBV obtained with PBLUP. Comparison of EBV and GEBV of individuals without phenotype, since the value of EBV is estimated based on expected values of alleles passed down from common ancestors. It does not take Mendelian sampling into consideration, so the EBV of all individuals within the same family is estimated to be the same value. However, GEBV makes estimating true kinship coefficient based on different genotypes of individuals possible, so GEBV that corresponds to each individual is estimated rather than a uniform GEBV for each individual. Conclusion: Since Hanwoo cows bred through embryo transfer have a high possibility of having the same parent, if ssGBLUP after adding genotype is used, estimating true kinship coefficient corresponding to each individual becomes possible, allowing for more accurate estimation of breeding value.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This work was carried out with the support of "Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. PJ0162182021)" Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

References

  1. Henderson CR. Theoretical basis and computational methods for a number of different animal models. J Dairy Sci 1988;71:l-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-0302(88)79974-9 
  2. Jil TC, Rahman MM, Pitchayapipatkul J, Mashitah SM, Nor Azlina AA, Raja Ili Airina RK. Viability of bovine opuderived oocytes to honeybee as cryoprotectant. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci 2021;756:012063. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/756/1/012063 
  3. Hayes BJ, Visscher PM, Goddard ME. Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix. Genet Res (Camb) 2009;91:47-60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672308009981 
  4. Goddard ME, Hayes BJ, Meuwissen THE. Using the genomic relationship matrix to predict the accuracy of genomic selection. J Anim Breed Genet 2011;128:409-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2011.00964.x 
  5. Sullivan PG. Mendelian sampling variance tests with genomic preselection. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Interbull Technical Workshop; 2018 Aug 25-26; Dubrovnik, Croatia. 
  6. Misztal I, Lourenco D, Legarra A. Current status of genomic evaluation. J Anim Sci 2020;98:skaa101. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaa101 
  7. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001;157:1819-29. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/157.4.1819 
  8. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing [cited 2022 Aug 10]. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/ 
  9. Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, et al. PLINK: A toolset for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analysis. Am J Hum Genet 2007;81:559-75. https://doi.org/10.1086/519795 
  10. Loh P. Eagle v2.4.1 User manual [Internet]. Loh Lab [cited 2022 Aug 6]. Available from: https://alkesgroup.broadinstitute.org/Eagle/ 
  11. Das S, Forer L, Schonherr S, et al. Next-generation genotype imputation service and methods. Nat Genet 2016;48:1284-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3656 
  12. Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Lourenco D, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Vitezica Z. Manual for BLUPF90 family programs [Internet]. University of Geonrgia, USA [cited 2022 Aug 6]. Available from: https://nce.ads.uga.edu/wiki/doku.php?id=documentation 
  13. VanRaden PM. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Diary Sci 2008;91:4414-23. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0980 
  14. Zhang Z, Buckler ES, Casstevens TM, Bradbury PJ. Software engineering the mixed model for genome-wide association studies on large samples. Brief Bioinform 2009;10:664-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbp050 
  15. Lee GH, Lee YS, Moon SJ, Kong HS. The accuracy of genomic estimated breeding value using a Hanwoo SNP Chip and the pedigree data of Hanwoo cows in Gyeonggi Province. J Life Sci 2022;32:279-84. https://doi.org/10.5352/JLS.2022.32.4.279 
  16. Lee CW, Choi JW, Shin HJ, Kim JB. Genetic prediction of Hanwoo carcass traits in Kangwon regional Hanwoo cow test farms. Ann Anim Resour Sci 2020;31:1-12. https://doi.org/10.12718/AARS.2020.31.1.1 
  17. Jang JS, Beag SJ, Baek JS, et al. 2021 Animal products grading statistical yearbook. 16th ed. Sejong, Korea: Korea Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation; 2022. 
  18. Choi TJ, Kim SD, Agapita JS, Baik DH. Genetic parameter estimation on the growth and carcass traits in Hanwoo (Korean Cattle). J Anim Sci Technol 2006;48:759-66. https://doi.org/10.5187/JAST.2006.48.6.759 
  19. Cesarani A, Gaspa G, Correddu F, Cellesi M, Dimauro C, Macciotta NPP. Genomic selection of milk fatty acid composition in Sarda dairy sheep: Effect of different phenotypes and relationship matrices on heritability and breeding value accuracy. J Dairy Sci 2019;102:3189-203. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15333 
  20. Esfandyari H, Thekkoot D, Kemp R, Plastow G, Dekkers J. Genetic parameters and purebred-crossbred genetic correlations for growth, meat quality, and carcass traits in pigs. J Anim Sci 2020;98:skaa379. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skaa379 
  21. Khanal P, Maltecca C, Schwab C. Gray K, Tiezzi F. Genetic parameters of meat quality, carcass composition, and growth traits in commercial swine. J Anim Sci 2019;97:3669-83. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz247 
  22. Abdalla EEA, Schenkel FS, Begli HE, et al. Single-step methodology for genomic evaluation in Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). Front Genet 2019;10:1248. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2019.01248 
  23. Park MN, Alam M, Kim SD, Park BH, Lee SH, Lee SS. Genomic selection through single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction improves the accuracy of evaluation in Hanwoo cattle. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2020;33:1544-57. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0936 
  24. Powell JE, Visscher PM, Goddard ME. Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies. Nat Rev Genet 2010;11:800-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2865 
  25. Bonk S, Reichelt M, Teuscher F, Segelke D, Reinsch N. Mendelian sampling covariability of marker effects and genetic values. Genet Sel Evol 2016;48:36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-016-0214-0 
  26. Hill WG, Weir BS. Variation in actual relationship as a consequence of Mendelian sampling and linkage. Genet Res 2011;93:47-64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672310000480 
  27. Lee SH, Goddard ME, Visscher PM, Werf JH. Using the realized relationship matrix to disentangle confounding factors for the estimation of genetic variance components of complex traits. Genet Sel Evol 2010;42:22. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-42-22 
  28. Veerkamp RF, Mulder HA, Thompson R, Calus MPL. Genomic and pedigree-based genetic parameters for scarcely recorded traits when some animals are genotyped. J Dairy Sci 2011;94:4189-97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4223 
  29. Christensen OF, Madsen P, Nielsen B, Ostersen T, Su G. Singlestep methods for genomic evaluation in pigs. Animal 2012;6:1565-71. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112000742 
  30. Jang SB, Kim SY, Lee SH, et al. The effect of progeny numbers and pedigree depth on the accuracy of the EBV with the BLUP method. Korean J Agric Sci 2019;46:293-301. https://doi.org/10.7744/kjoas.20190015