Improving Genomic Prediction of Crossbred and Purebred Dairy Cattle

被引:18
|
作者
Khansefid, Majid [1 ]
Goddard, Michael E. [1 ,2 ]
Haile-Mariam, Mekonnen [1 ]
Konstantinov, Kon, V [3 ]
Schrooten, Chris [4 ]
de Jong, Gerben [4 ]
Jewell, Erica G. [3 ]
O'Connor, Erin [5 ]
Pryce, Jennie E. [1 ,6 ]
Daetwyler, Hans D. [1 ,6 ]
MacLeod, Iona M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Agr Victoria Serv, AgriBio Ctr AgriBiosci, Bundoora, Vic, Australia
[2] Univ Melbourne, Fac Vet & Agr Sci, Parkville, Vic, Australia
[3] DataGene, Bundoora, Vic, Australia
[4] CRV, Arnhem, Netherlands
[5] CRV Ambreed, Hamilton, New Zealand
[6] La Trobe Univ, Sch Appl Syst Biol, Bundoora, Vic, Australia
关键词
genomic prediction; crossbred; multi-breed; dairy cattle; GBLUP; Bayesian; MULTI-BREED; MILK-YIELD; SELECTION; NUCLEOTIDE; HOLSTEIN; RELIABILITY; POPULATION; IMPUTATION; ACCURACY; BULLS;
D O I
10.3389/fgene.2020.598580
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
This study assessed the accuracy and bias of genomic prediction (GP) in purebred Holstein (H) and Jersey (J) as well as crossbred (H and J) validation cows using different reference sets and prediction strategies. The reference sets were made up of different combinations of 36,695 H and J purebreds and crossbreds. Additionally, the effect of using different sets of marker genotypes on GP was studied (conventional panel: 50k, custom panel enriched with, or close to, causal mutations: XT_50k, and conventional high-density with a limited custom set: pruned HDnGBS). We also compared the use of genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and Bayesian (emBayesR) models, and the traits tested were milk, fat, and protein yields. On average, by including crossbred cows in the reference population, the prediction accuracies increased by 0.01-0.08 and were less biased (regression coefficient closer to 1 by 0.02-0.16), and the benefit was greater for crossbreds compared to purebreds. The accuracy of prediction increased by 0.02 using XT_50k compared to 50k genotypes without affecting the bias. Although using pruned HDnGBS instead of 50k also increased the prediction accuracy by about 0.02, it increased the bias for purebred predictions in emBayesR models. Generally, emBayesR outperformed GBLUP for prediction accuracy when using 50k or pruned HDnGBS genotypes, but the benefits diminished with XT_50k genotypes. Crossbred predictions derived from a joint pure H and J reference were similar in accuracy to crossbred predictions derived from the two separate purebred reference sets and combined proportional to breed composition. However, the latter approach was less biased by 0.13. Most interestingly, using an equalized breed reference instead of an H-dominated reference, on average, reduced the bias of prediction by 0.16-0.19 and increased the accuracy by 0.04 for crossbred and J cows, with a little change in the H accuracy. In conclusion, we observed improved genomic predictions for both crossbreds and purebreds by equalizing breed contributions in a mixed breed reference that included crossbred cows. Furthermore, we demonstrate, that compared to the conventional 50k or high-density panels, our customized set of 50k sequence markers improved or matched the prediction accuracy and reduced bias with both GBLUP and Bayesian models.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Accuracy of Predicted Genomic Breeding Values in Purebred and Crossbred Pigs
    Hidalgo, Andre M.
    Bastiaansen, John W. M.
    Lopes, Marcos S.
    Harlizius, Barbara
    Groenen, Martien A. M.
    de Koning, Dirk-Jan
    G3-GENES GENOMES GENETICS, 2015, 5 (08): : 1575 - 1583
  • [22] Genomic evaluation of both purebred and crossbred performances
    Christensen, Ole F.
    Madsen, Per
    Nielsen, Bjarne
    Su, Guosheng
    GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2014, 46
  • [23] Genetic parameters for traits other than production in purebred and crossbred New Zealand dairy cattle
    Cue, RI
    Harris, BL
    Rendel, JM
    LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION SCIENCE, 1996, 45 (2-3): : 123 - 135
  • [24] Effects of preselection of genotyped animals on reliability and bias of genomic prediction in dairy cattle
    Togashi, Kenji
    Adachi, Kazunori
    Kurogi, Kazuhito
    Yasumori, Takanori
    Tokunaka, Kouichi
    Ogino, Atsushi
    Miyazaki, Yoshiyuki
    Watanabe, Toshio
    Takahashi, Tsutomu
    Moribe, Kimihiro
    ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCES, 2019, 32 (02): : 159 - 169
  • [25] Across-country genomic prediction of bull fertility in Jersey dairy cattle
    Rezende, Fernanda M.
    Haile-Mariam, Mekonnen
    Pryce, Jennie E.
    Penagaricano, Francisco
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2020, 103 (12) : 11618 - 11627
  • [26] The feasibility of using low-density marker panels for genotype imputation and genomic prediction of crossbred dairy cattle of East Africa
    Aliloo, H.
    Mrode, R.
    Okeyo, A. M.
    Ni, G.
    Goddard, M. E.
    Gibson, J. P.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2018, 101 (10) : 9108 - 9127
  • [27] Impact of Marker Pruning Strategies Based on Different Measurements of Marker Distance on Genomic Prediction in Dairy Cattle
    Ren, Duanyang
    Teng, Jinyan
    Diao, Shuqi
    Lin, Qing
    Li, Jiaqi
    Zhang, Zhe
    ANIMALS, 2021, 11 (07):
  • [28] Validating genomic predictions for economic traits in purebred US dairy heifers
    Toghiani, Sajjad
    Vanraden, Paul M.
    Null, Daniel J.
    Miles, Asha M.
    Van Tassell, Curtis P.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2024, 107 (12) : 11117 - 11126
  • [29] Multibreed genomic evaluation of dairy cattle
    Olson, K. M.
    VanRaden, P. M.
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2010, 93 : 471 - 471
  • [30] Genomic prediction of bull fertility in US Jersey dairy cattle
    Rezende, Fernanda M.
    Pablo Nani, Juan
    Penagaricano, Francisco
    JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2019, 102 (04) : 3230 - 3240