• Animal Bioscience
• /
• v.36 no.7
• /
• pp.1003-1009
• /
• 2023

Objective: The objective was to compare (pedigree-based) best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP), genomic BLUP (GBLUP), and single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) methods for genomic evaluation of growth traits in a Mexican Braunvieh cattle population. Methods: Birth (BW), weaning (WW), and yearling weight (YW) data of a Mexican Braunvieh cattle population were analyzed with BLUP, GBLUP, and ssGBLUP methods. These methods are differentiated by the additive genetic relationship matrix included in the model and the animals under evaluation. The predictive ability of the model was evaluated using random partitions of the data in training and testing sets, consistently predicting about 20% of genotyped animals on all occasions. For each partition, the Pearson correlation coefficient between adjusted phenotypes for fixed effects and non-genetic random effects and the estimated breeding values (EBV) were computed. Results: The random contemporary group (CG) effect explained about 50%, 45%, and 35% of the phenotypic variance in BW, WW, and YW, respectively. For the three methods, the CG effect explained the highest proportion of the phenotypic variances (except for YW-GBLUP). The heritability estimate obtained with GBLUP was the lowest for BW, while the highest heritability was obtained with BLUP. For WW, the highest heritability estimate was obtained with BLUP, the estimates obtained with GBLUP and ssGBLUP were similar. For YW, the heritability estimates obtained with GBLUP and BLUP were similar, and the lowest heritability was obtained with ssGBLUP. Pearson correlation coefficients between adjusted phenotypes for non-genetic effects and EBVs were the highest for BLUP, followed by ssBLUP and GBLUP. Conclusion: The successful implementation of genetic evaluations that include genotyped and non-genotyped animals in our study indicate a promising method for use in genetic improvement programs of Braunvieh cattle. Our findings showed that simultaneous evaluation of genotyped and non-genotyped animals improved prediction accuracy for growth traits even with a limited number of genotyped animals.

• Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
• /
• v.30 no.2
• /
• pp.149-153
• /
• 2017

Objective: This study was to determine the relationship between estimated breeding value and phenotype information after farrowing when juvenile selection was made in candidate pigs without phenotype information. Methods: After collecting phenotypic and genomic information for the total number of piglets born by Landrace pigs, selection accuracy between genomic breeding value estimates using genomic information and breeding value estimates of best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) using conventional pedigree information were compared. Results: Genetic standard deviation (${\sigma}_a$) for the total number of piglets born was 0.91. Since the total number of piglets born for candidate pigs was unknown, the accuracy of the breeding value estimated from pedigree information was 0.080. When genomic information was used, the accuracy of the breeding value was 0.216. Assuming that the replacement rate of sows per year is 100% and generation interval is 1 year, genetic gain per year is 0.346 head when genomic information is used. It is 0.128 when BLUP is used. Conclusion: Genetic gain estimated from single step best linear unbiased prediction (ssBLUP) method is by 2.7 times higher than that the one estimated from BLUP method, i.e., 270% more improvement in efficiency.

• Animal Bioscience
• /
• v.36 no.9
• /
• pp.1327-1335
• /
• 2023

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.

• Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
• /
• v.33 no.10
• /
• pp.1544-1557
• /
• 2020

Objective: Genomic selection (GS) is becoming popular in animals' genetic development. We, therefore, investigated the single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) as tool for GS, and compared its efficacy with the traditional pedigree BLUP (pedBLUP) method. Methods: A total of 9,952 males born between 1997 and 2018 under Hanwoo proven-bull selection program was studied. We analyzed body weight at 12 months and carcass weight (kg), backfat thickness, eye muscle area, and marbling score traits. About 7,387 bulls were genotyped using Illumina 50K BeadChip Arrays. Multiple-trait animal model analyses were performed using BLUPF90 software programs. Breeding value accuracy was calculated using two methods: i) Pearson's correlation of genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) with EBV of all animals (r_M1) and ii) correlation using inverse of coefficient matrix from the mixed-model equations (r_M2). Then, we compared these accuracies by overall population, info-type (PHEN, phenotyped-only; GEN, genotyped-only; and PH+GEN, phenotyped and genotyped), and bull-types (YBULL, young male calves; CBULL, young candidate bulls; and PBULL, proven bulls). Results: The r_M1 estimates in the study were between 0.90 and 0.96 among five traits. The r_M1 estimates varied slightly by population and info-type, but noticeably by bull-type for traits. Generally average r_M2 estimates were much smaller than r_M1 (pedBLUP, 0.40 to0.44; ssGBLUP, 0.41 to 0.45) at population level. However, r_M2 from both BLUP models varied noticeably across info-types and bull-types. The ssGBLUP estimates of r_M2 in PHEN, GEN, and PH+ GEN ranged between 0.51 and 0.63, 0.66 and 0.70, and 0.68 and 0.73, respectively. In YBULL, CBULL, and PBULL, the r_M2 estimates ranged between 0.54 and 0.57, 0.55 and 0.62, and 0.70 and 0.74, respectively. The pedBLUP based r_M2 estimates were also relatively lower than ssGBLUP estimates. At the population level, we found an increase in accuracy by 2.0% to 4.5% among traits. Traits in PHEN were least influenced by ssGBLUP (0% to 2.0%), whereas the highest positive changes were in GEN (8.1% to 10.7%). PH+GEN also showed 6.5% to 8.5% increase in accuracy by ssGBLUP. However, the highest improvements were found in bull-types (YBULL, 21% to 35.7%; CBULL, 3.3% to 9.3%; PBULL, 2.8% to 6.1%). Conclusion: A noticeable improvement by ssGBLUP was observed in this study. Findings of differential responses to ssGBLUP by various bulls could assist in better selection decision making as well. We, therefore, suggest that ssGBLUP could be used for GS in Hanwoo proven-bull evaluation program.

• Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
• /
• v.32 no.12
• /
• pp.1836-1843
• /
• 2019

Objective: Social genetic effects (SGE) are an important genetic component for growth, group productivity, and welfare in pigs. The present study was conducted to evaluate i) the feasibility of the single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) approach with the inclusion of SGE in the model in pigs, and ii) the changes in the contribution of heritable SGE to the phenotypic variance with different scaling ${\omega}$ constants for genomic relationships. Methods: The dataset included performance tested growth rate records (average daily gain) from 13,166 and 21,762 pigs Landrace (LR) and Yorkshire (YS), respectively. A total of 1,041 (LR) and 964 (YS) pigs were genotyped using the Illumina PorcineSNP60 v2 BeadChip panel. With the BLUPF90 software package, genetic parameters were estimated using a modified animal model for competitive traits. Giving a fixed weight to pedigree relationships (${\tau}:1$), several weights (${\omega}_{xx}$, 0.1 to 1.0; with a 0.1 interval) were scaled with the genomic relationship for best model fit with Akaike information criterion (AIC). Results: The genetic variances and total heritability estimates ($T^2$) were mostly higher with ssGBLUP than in the pedigree-based analysis. The model AIC value increased with any level of ${\omega}$ other than 0.6 and 0.5 in LR and YS, respectively, indicating the worse fit of those models. The theoretical accuracies of direct and social breeding value were increased by decreasing ${\omega}$ in both breeds, indicating the better accuracy of ${\omega}_{0.1}$ models. Therefore, the optimal values of ${\omega}$ to minimize AIC and to increase theoretical accuracy were 0.6 in LR and 0.5 in YS. Conclusion: In conclusion, single-step ssGBLUP model fitting SGE showed significant improvement in accuracy compared with the pedigree-based analysis method; therefore, it could be implemented in a pig population for genomic selection based on SGE, especially in South Korean populations, with appropriate further adjustment of tuning parameters for relationship matrices.

• Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
• /
• v.31 no.5
• /
• pp.628-635
• /
• 2018

Objective: To determine the effects of genomic breeding values (GBV) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) on the total number of piglets born (TNB) in 3 pig breeds (Berkshire, Landrace, and Yorkshire). Methods: After collecting genomic information (Porcine SNP BeadChip) and phenotypic TNB records for each breed, the effects of GBV and SNP were estimated by using single step best linear unbiased prediction (ssBLUP) method. Results: The heritability estimates for TNB in Berkshire, Landrace, and Yorkshire breeds were 0.078, 0.107, and 0.121, respectively. The breeding value estimates for TNB in Berkshire, Landrace, and Yorkshire breeds were in the range of -1.34 to 1.47 heads, -1.79 to 1.87 heads, and -2.60 to 2.94 heads, respectively. Of sows having records for TNB, the reliability of breeding value for individuals with SNP information was higher than that for individuals without SNP information. Distributions of the SNP effects on TNB did not follow gamma distribution. Most SNP effects were near zero. Only a few SNPs had large effects. The numbers of SNPs with absolute value of more than 4 standard deviations in Berkshire, Landrace, and Yorkshire breeds were 11, 8, and 19, respectively. There was no SNP with absolute value of more than 5 standard deviations in Berkshire or Landrace. However, in Yorkshire, four SNPs (ASGA 0089457, ASGA0103374, ALGA0111816, and ALGA0098882) had absolute values of more than 5 standard deviations. Conclusion: There was no common SNP with large effect among breeds. This might be due to the large genetic composition differences and the small size of reference population. For the precise evaluation of genetic performance of individuals using a genomic selection method, it may be necessary to establish the appropriate size of reference population.