Investigating the impact of preselection on subsequent single-step genomic BLUP evaluation of preselected animals

被引:16
作者
Jibrila, Ibrahim [1 ]
ten Napel, Jan [1 ]
Vandenplas, Jeremie [1 ]
Veerkamp, Roel F. [1 ]
Calus, Mario P. L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Wageningen Univ & Res, Anim Breeding & Genom, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, NL-6708 PB Wageningen, Netherlands
关键词
GENETIC EVALUATIONS; BREEDING SCHEMES; SELECTION; BIAS; POPULATIONS; PREDICTIONS; PARAMETERS; VARIANCE;
D O I
10.1186/s12711-020-00562-6
中图分类号
S8 [畜牧、 动物医学、狩猎、蚕、蜂];
学科分类号
0905 ;
摘要
Background Preselection of candidates, hereafter referred to as preselection, is a common practice in breeding programs. Preselection can cause bias and accuracy loss in subsequent pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction (PBLUP). However, the impact of preselection on subsequent single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) is not completely clear yet. Therefore, in this study, we investigated, across different heritabilities, the impact of intensity and type of preselection on subsequent ssGBLUP evaluation of preselected animals. Methods We simulated a nucleus of a breeding programme, in which a recent population of 15 generations was produced with PBLUP-based selection. In generation 15 of this recent population, the parents of the next generation were preselected using several preselection scenarios. These scenarios were combinations of three intensities of preselection (no, high or very high preselection) and three types of preselection (genomic, parental average or random), across three heritabilities (0.5, 0.3 or 0.1). Following each preselection scenario, a subsequent evaluation was performed using ssGBLUP by excluding all the information from the preculled animals, and these genetic evaluations were compared in terms of accuracy and bias for the preselected animals, and in terms of realized genetic gain. Results Type of preselection affected selection accuracy at both preselection and subsequent evaluation stages. While preselection accuracy decreased, accuracy in the subsequent ssGBLUP evaluation increased, from genomic to parent average to random preselection scenarios. Bias was always negligible. Genetic gain decreased from genomic to parent average to random preselection scenarios. Genetic gain also decreased with increasing intensity of preselection, but only by a maximum of 0.1 additive genetic standard deviation from no to very high genomic preselection scenarios. Conclusions Using ssGBLUP in subsequent evaluations prevents preselection bias, irrespective of intensity and type of preselection, and heritability. With GPS, in addition to reducing the phenotyping effort considerably, the use of ssGBLUP in subsequent evaluations realizes only a slightly lower genetic gain than that realized without preselection. This is especially the case for traits that are expensive to measure (e.g. feed intake of individual broiler chickens), and traits for which phenotypes can only be measured at advanced stages of life (e.g. litter size in pigs).
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparing Alternative Single-Step GBLUP Approaches and Training Population Designs for Genomic Evaluation of Crossbred Animals
    Alvarenga, Amanda B.
    Veroneze, Renata
    Oliveira, Hinayah R.
    Marques, Daniele B. D.
    Lopes, Paulo S.
    Silva, Fabyano F.
    Brito, Luiz F.
    FRONTIERS IN GENETICS, 2020, 11
  • [32] Impact of genomic preselection on subsequent genetic evaluations with ssGBLUP using real data from pigs
    Jibrila, Ibrahim
    Vandenplas, Jeremie
    ten Napel, Jan
    Bergsma, Rob
    Veerkamp, Roel F.
    Calus, Mario P. L.
    GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2022, 54 (01)
  • [33] Technical note: Genomic evaluation for crossbred performance in a single-step approach with metafounders
    Xiang, T.
    Christensen, O. F.
    Legarra, A.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2017, 95 (04) : 1472 - 1480
  • [34] Hot topic: Use of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) with a large number of genotypes
    Fragomeni, B. O.
    Lourenco, D. A. L.
    Tsuruta, S.
    Masuda, Y.
    Aguilar, I.
    Legarra, A.
    Lawlor, T. J.
    Misztal, I.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2015, 98 (06) : 4090 - 4094
  • [35] Application of single-step genomic evaluation for crossbred performance in pig
    Xiang, T.
    Nielsen, B.
    Su, G.
    Legarra, A.
    Christensen, O. F.
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2016, 94 (03) : 936 - 948
  • [36] Additional considerations to the use of single-step genomic predictions in a dominance setting
    Mota, Rodrigo R.
    Vanderick, Sylvie
    Colinet, Frederic G.
    Hammami, Hedi
    Wiggans, George R.
    Gengler, Nicolas
    JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS, 2019, 136 (06) : 430 - 440
  • [37] Experiences with a single-step genome evaluation
    Misztal, Ignacy
    Aggrey, Samuel E.
    Muir, William M.
    POULTRY SCIENCE, 2013, 92 (09) : 2530 - 2534
  • [38] Single-step genomic BLUP enables joint analysis of disconnected breeding programs: an example with Eucalyptus globulus Labill.
    Callister, Andrew N.
    Bradshaw, Ben P.
    Elms, Stephen
    Gillies, Ross A. W.
    Sasse, Joanna M.
    Brawner, Jeremy T.
    G3-GENES GENOMES GENETICS, 2021, 11 (10):
  • [39] Determining Heat Stress Effects of Multiple Genetic Traits in Tropical Dairy Cattle Using Single-Step Genomic BLUP
    Sungkhapreecha, Piriyaporn
    Chankitisakul, Vibuntita
    Duangjinda, Monchai
    Buaban, Sayan
    Boonkum, Wuttigrai
    VETERINARY SCIENCES, 2022, 9 (02)
  • [40] Symposium review: Single-step genomic evaluations in dairy cattle
    Mantysaari, E. A.
    Koivula, M.
    Stranden, I.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2020, 103 (06) : 5314 - 5326