Genomic predictions for yield traits in US Holsteins with unknown parent groups

被引:27
作者
Cesarani, A. [1 ]
Masuda, Y. [1 ]
Tsuruta, S. [1 ]
Nicolazzi, E. L. [2 ]
VanRaden, P. M. [3 ]
Lourenco, D. [1 ]
Misztal, I [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Georgia, Dept Anim & Dairy Sci, Athens, GA 30602 USA
[2] Council Dairy Cattle Breeding, Bowie, MD 20716 USA
[3] ARS, Anim Genom & Improvement Lab, USDA, Beltsville, MD 20705 USA
基金
美国食品与农业研究所;
关键词
unknown parent group; reliabilities; genomic selection; cow validation; LINEAR UNBIASED PREDICTOR; TECHNICAL-NOTE ADJUSTMENT; GENETIC EVALUATION; LARGE NUMBER; COW EVALUATIONS; FULL PEDIGREE; SELECTION; MODEL; PERFORMANCE; RECURSIONS;
D O I
10.3168/jds.2020-19789
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 objective of this study was to assess the reliability and bias of estimated breeding values (EBV) from traditional BLUP with unknown parent groups (UPG), genomic EBV (GEBV) from single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) with UPG for the pedigree relationship matrix (A) only (SS_UPG), and GEBV from ssGBLUP with UPG for both A and the relationship matrix among genotyped animals (A(22); SS_UPG2) using 6 large phenotype-pedigree truncated Holstein data sets. The complete data included 80 million records for milk, fat, and protein yields from 31 million cows recorded since 1980. Phenotype-pedigree truncation scenarios included truncation of phenotypes for cows recorded before 1990 and 2000 combined with truncation of pedigree information after 2 or 3 ancestral generations. A total of 861,525 genotyped bulls with progeny and cows with phenotypic records were used in the analyses. Reliability and bias (inflation/deflation) of GEBV were obtained for 2,710 bulls based on deregressed proofs, and on 381,779 cows born after 2014 based on predictivity (adjusted cow phenotypes). The BLUP reliabilities for young bulls varied from 0.29 to 0.30 across traits and were unaffected by data truncation and number of generations in the pedigree. Reliabilities ranged from 0.54 to 0.69 for SS_UPG and were slightly affected by phenotype-pedigree truncation. Reliabilities ranged from 0.69 to 0.73 for SS_UPG2 and were unaffected by phenotype-pedigree truncation. The regression coefficient of bull deregressed proofs on (G)EBV (i.e., GEBV and EBV) ranged from 0.86 to 0.90 for BLUP, from 0.77 to 0.94 for SS_UPG, and was 1.00 +/- 0.03 for SS_UPG2. Cow predictivity ranged from 0.22 to 0.28 for BLUP, 0.48 to 0.51 for SS_UPG, and 0.51 to 0.54 for SS_UPG2. The highest cow predictivities for BLUP were obtained with the most extreme truncation, whereas for SS_UPG2, cow predictivities were also unaffected by phenotype-pedigree truncations. The regression coefficient of cow predictivities on (G)EBV was 1.02 +/- 0.02 for SS_UPG2 with the most extreme truncation, which indicated the least biased predictions. Computations with the complete data set took 17 h with BLUP, 58 h with SS_UPG, and 23 h with SS_UPG2. The same computations with the most extreme phenotype-pedigree truncation took 7, 36, and 15 h, respectively. The SS_UPG2 converged in fewer rounds than BLUP, whereas SS_UPG took up to twice as many rounds. Thus, the ssGBLUP with UPG assigned to both A and A(22) provided accurate and unbiased evaluations, regardless of phenotype-pedigree truncation scenario. Old phenotypes (before 2000 in this data set) did not affect the reliability of predictions for young selection candidates, especially in SS_UPG2.
引用
收藏
页码:5843 / 5853
页数:11
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]   Hot topic: A unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score [J].
Aguilar, I. ;
Misztal, I. ;
Johnson, D. L. ;
Legarra, A. ;
Tsuruta, S. ;
Lawlor, T. J. .
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2010, 93 (02) :743-752
[2]  
Bermann M., 2021, J ANIM SCI
[3]   Modeling pedigree accuracy and uncertain parentage in single-step genomic evaluations of simulated and US Holstein datasets [J].
Bradford, H. L. ;
Masuda, Y. ;
Cole, J. B. ;
Misztal, I ;
VanRaden, P. M. .
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2019, 102 (03) :2308-2318
[4]   Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped [J].
Christensen, Ole F. ;
Lund, Mogens S. .
GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2010, 42
[5]   Performances of Adaptive MultiBLUP, Bayesian regressions, and weighted-GBLUP approaches for genomic predictions in Belgian Blue beef cattle [J].
Duarte, Jose Luis Gualdron ;
Gori, Ann-Stephan ;
Hubin, Xavier ;
Lourenco, Daniela ;
Charlier, Carole ;
Misztal, Ignacy ;
Druet, Tom .
BMC GENOMICS, 2020, 21 (01)
[6]   Alternative SNP weighting for single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor evaluation of stature in US Holsteins in the presence of selected sequence variants [J].
Fragomeni, B. O. ;
Lourenco, D. A. L. ;
Legarra, A. ;
VanRaden, P. M. ;
Misztal, I .
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2019, 102 (11) :10012-10019
[7]   Hot topic: Use of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) with a large number of genotypes [J].
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
[8]   Use of a single-step approach for integrating foreign information into national genomic evaluation in Holstein cattle [J].
Guarini, A. R. ;
Lourenco, D. A. L. ;
Brito, L. F. ;
Sargolzaei, M. ;
Baes, C. F. ;
Miglior, F. ;
Tsuruta, S. ;
Misztal, I ;
Schenkel, F. S. .
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2019, 102 (09) :8175-8183
[9]   The impact of truncating data on the predictive ability for single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction [J].
Howard, Jeremy T. ;
Rathje, Tom A. ;
Bruns, Caitlyn E. ;
Wilson-Wells, Danielle F. ;
Kachman, Stephen D. ;
Spangler, Matthew L. .
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS, 2018, 135 (04) :251-262
[10]   A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information [J].
Legarra, A. ;
Aguilar, I. ;
Misztal, I. .
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2009, 92 (09) :4656-4663