Bias and accuracy of body weight trait evaluations of an F2 chicken using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP)

被引:0
作者
Asadollahi, Hamed [1 ]
Mahyari, Saeid Ansari [1 ]
Torshizi, Rasoul Vaez [2 ]
Emrani, Hossein [3 ]
Ehsani, Alireza [2 ]
机构
[1] Isfahan Univ Technol IUT, Coll Agr, Dept Anim Sci, Esfahan 8415683111, Iran
[2] Tarbiat Modares Univ, Fac Agr, Dept Anim Sci, Tehran, Iran
[3] Agr Res Educ & Extens Org AREEO, Anim Sci Res Inst Iran, Karaj 31585, Iran
关键词
SNP; MAF; BLUP; ssGBLUP; F2; chicken; GENETIC-PARAMETERS; WIDE ASSOCIATION; COMPLEX TRAITS; SELECTION; POPULATION; GROWTH; INFORMATION; PEDIGREE; HOLSTEIN;
D O I
10.1139/cjas-2023-00091
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
The objectives of this study were (i) to compare the accuracy and bias of estimates of breeding values for body weight (BW) at 2-7 weeks of age using pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) and single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) methods, and (ii) to determine the best level of minor allele frequencies (MAFs) for pre-selection of SNPs for genomic prediction (GP). Records of 488 F2 broiler chickens obtained from crossbreeding of fast-growing Arian chickens and slow-growing Iranian native chickens at 2-7 weeks of age were used. Samples were genotyped using Illumina Chicken 60K BeadChip. To investigate the effect of MAFs on the accuracy of prediction, 48 379 quality-controlled SNPs were grouped into five subgroups with MAF bins 0.05-0.1, 0.1-0.2, 0.2-0.3, 0.3-0.4, and 0.4-0.5. Our results confirmed the superiority of ssGBLUP compared to traditional BLUP methodology. The average accuracy of GP improved by 59.03%, 220.34%, 0.46%, 5.61%, 0.45%, and 2.73% using ssGBLUP compared to BLUP for BW at 2-7 weeks of age, respectively. Depending on the age group, using a subset of SNPs with a specific MAF bin compared to all SNPs resulted in a remarkable improvement of GP accuracy for the observed traits.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 51 条
  • [1] Adeyinka I. A., 2006, International Journal of Poultry Science, V5, P589
  • [2] Multiple trait genomic evaluation of conception rate in Holsteins
    Aguilar, I.
    Misztal, I.
    Tsuruta, S.
    Wiggans, G. R.
    Lawlor, T. J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2011, 94 (05) : 2621 - 2624
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2013, R LANG ENV STAT COMP, P201, DOI DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-74686-7
  • [4] An association of CEP78, MEF2C, VPS13A and ARRDC3 genes with survivability to heat stress in an F2 chicken population
    Asadollahi, Hamed
    Torshizi, Rasoul Vaez
    Ehsani, Alireza
    Masoudi, Ali Akbar
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS, 2022, 139 (05) : 574 - 582
  • [5] Relationship between residual feed intake and carcass composition, meat quality and size of small intestine in a population of F2 chickens
    Begli, Hakimeh Emamgholi
    Torshizi, Rasoul Vaez
    Masoudi, Ali Akbar
    Ehsani, Alireza
    Jensen, Just
    [J]. LIVESTOCK SCIENCE, 2017, 205 : 10 - 15
  • [6] Validation of single-step GBLUP genomic predictions from threshold models using the linear regression method: An application in chicken mortality
    Bermann, Matias
    Legarra, Andres
    Hollifield, Mary Kate
    Masuda, Yutaka
    Lourenco, Daniela
    Misztal, Ignacy
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS, 2021, 138 (01) : 4 - 13
  • [7] Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets
    Chang, Christopher C.
    Chow, Carson C.
    Tellier, Laurent C. A. M.
    Vattikuti, Shashaank
    Purcell, Shaun M.
    Lee, James J.
    [J]. GIGASCIENCE, 2015, 4
  • [8] Genome-wide marker-assisted selection combining all pedigree phenotypic information with genotypic data in one step: An example using broiler chickens
    Chen, C. Y.
    Misztal, I.
    Aguilar, I.
    Tsuruta, S.
    Meuwissen, T. H. E.
    Aggrey, S. E.
    Wing, T.
    Muir, W. M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2011, 89 (01) : 23 - 28
  • [9] Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs
    Christensen, O. F.
    Madsen, P.
    Nielsen, B.
    Ostersen, T.
    Su, G.
    [J]. ANIMAL, 2012, 6 (10) : 1565 - 1571
  • [10] Different models of genetic variation and their effect on genomic evaluation
    Clark, Samuel A.
    Hickey, John M.
    van der Werf, Julius H. J.
    [J]. GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2011, 43