Use of whole-genome sequence data and novel genomic selection strategies to improve selection for age at puberty in tropically-adapted beef heifers.
Journal
Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE
ISSN: 1297-9686
Titre abrégé: Genet Sel Evol
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9114088
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 May 2020
27 May 2020
Historique:
received:
09
12
2019
accepted:
15
05
2020
entrez:
29
5
2020
pubmed:
29
5
2020
medline:
7
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In tropically-adapted beef heifers, application of genomic prediction for age at puberty has been limited due to low prediction accuracies. Our aim was to investigate novel methods of pre-selecting whole-genome sequence (WGS) variants and alternative analysis methodologies; including genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) with multiple genomic relationship matrices (MGRM) and Bayesian (BayesR) analyses, to determine if prediction accuracy for age at puberty can be improved. Genotypes and phenotypes were obtained from two research herds. In total, 868 Brahman and 960 Tropical Composite heifers were recorded in the first population and 3695 Brahman, Santa Gertrudis and Droughtmaster heifers were recorded in the second population. Genotypes were imputed to 23 million whole-genome sequence variants. Eight strategies were used to pre-select variants from genome-wide association study (GWAS) results using conditional or joint (COJO) analyses. Pre-selected variants were included in three models, GBLUP with a single genomic relationship matrix (SGRM), GBLUP MGRM and BayesR. Five-way cross-validation was used to test the effect of marker panel density (6 K, 50 K and 800 K), analysis model, and inclusion of pre-selected WGS variants on prediction accuracy. In all tested scenarios, prediction accuracies for age at puberty were highest in BayesR analyses. The addition of pre-selected WGS variants had little effect on the accuracy of prediction when BayesR was used. The inclusion of WGS variants that were pre-selected using a meta-analysis with COJO analyses by chromosome, fitted in a MGRM model, had the highest prediction accuracies in the GBLUP analyses, regardless of marker density. When the low-density (6 K) panel was used, the prediction accuracy of GBLUP was equal (0.42) to that with the high-density panel when only six additional sequence variants (identified using meta-analysis COJO by chromosome) were included. While BayesR consistently outperforms other methods in terms of prediction accuracies, reasonable improvements in accuracy can be achieved when using GBLUP and low-density panels with the inclusion of a relatively small number of highly relevant WGS variants.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In tropically-adapted beef heifers, application of genomic prediction for age at puberty has been limited due to low prediction accuracies. Our aim was to investigate novel methods of pre-selecting whole-genome sequence (WGS) variants and alternative analysis methodologies; including genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) with multiple genomic relationship matrices (MGRM) and Bayesian (BayesR) analyses, to determine if prediction accuracy for age at puberty can be improved.
METHODS
METHODS
Genotypes and phenotypes were obtained from two research herds. In total, 868 Brahman and 960 Tropical Composite heifers were recorded in the first population and 3695 Brahman, Santa Gertrudis and Droughtmaster heifers were recorded in the second population. Genotypes were imputed to 23 million whole-genome sequence variants. Eight strategies were used to pre-select variants from genome-wide association study (GWAS) results using conditional or joint (COJO) analyses. Pre-selected variants were included in three models, GBLUP with a single genomic relationship matrix (SGRM), GBLUP MGRM and BayesR. Five-way cross-validation was used to test the effect of marker panel density (6 K, 50 K and 800 K), analysis model, and inclusion of pre-selected WGS variants on prediction accuracy.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In all tested scenarios, prediction accuracies for age at puberty were highest in BayesR analyses. The addition of pre-selected WGS variants had little effect on the accuracy of prediction when BayesR was used. The inclusion of WGS variants that were pre-selected using a meta-analysis with COJO analyses by chromosome, fitted in a MGRM model, had the highest prediction accuracies in the GBLUP analyses, regardless of marker density. When the low-density (6 K) panel was used, the prediction accuracy of GBLUP was equal (0.42) to that with the high-density panel when only six additional sequence variants (identified using meta-analysis COJO by chromosome) were included.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
While BayesR consistently outperforms other methods in terms of prediction accuracies, reasonable improvements in accuracy can be achieved when using GBLUP and low-density panels with the inclusion of a relatively small number of highly relevant WGS variants.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32460805
doi: 10.1186/s12711-020-00547-5
pii: 10.1186/s12711-020-00547-5
pmc: PMC7251835
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
28Subventions
Organisme : ARC Linkage Grant
ID : LP160101626
Références
Genet Sel Evol. 2018 May 18;50(1):27
pubmed: 29776327
J Dairy Sci. 2012 Jul;95(7):4114-29
pubmed: 22720968
Nat Genet. 2012 Mar 18;44(4):369-75, S1-3
pubmed: 22426310
J Anim Breed Genet. 2007 Dec;124(6):323-30
pubmed: 18076469
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Feb;101(2):1292-1296
pubmed: 29153527
J Dairy Sci. 2015 Jun;98(6):4107-16
pubmed: 25892697
Aust Vet J. 1994 Dec;71(12):422-6
pubmed: 7702482
BMC Genomics. 2014 Jun 17;15:478
pubmed: 24935670
Nature. 2010 Oct 14;467(7317):832-8
pubmed: 20881960
Genet Sel Evol. 2016 Dec 1;48(1):95
pubmed: 27905878
J Anim Sci. 2012 May;90(5):1398-410
pubmed: 22100599
Anim Genet. 2013 Dec;44(6):636-47
pubmed: 23909810
Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2019 Feb 15;7:89-102
pubmed: 30508490
Nat Genet. 2016 Oct;48(10):1284-1287
pubmed: 27571263
Anim Genet. 2016 Jun;47(3):370-2
pubmed: 26857482
J Anim Sci. 2019 Jan 1;97(1):55-62
pubmed: 30371787
Theriogenology. 1989 Aug;32(2):285-300
pubmed: 16726675
J Anim Sci. 2019 Jan 1;97(1):90-100
pubmed: 30481306
Anim Reprod Sci. 2010 Oct;122(1-2):1-22
pubmed: 20447780
BMC Genomics. 2020 Jan 28;21(1):89
pubmed: 31992181
Genet Mol Res. 2008;7(4):1312-8
pubmed: 19065766
PLoS Genet. 2015 Apr 07;11(4):e1004969
pubmed: 25849665
Brain Behav. 2018 Jun;8(6):e00969
pubmed: 30106251
Am J Hum Genet. 2011 Jan 7;88(1):76-82
pubmed: 21167468
J Anim Breed Genet. 2016 Jun;133(3):167-79
pubmed: 26776363
Bioinformatics. 2010 Sep 1;26(17):2190-1
pubmed: 20616382
J Anim Sci. 2019 Jul 2;97(7):3027-3033
pubmed: 30997484
Nat Genet. 2016 Nov;48(11):1443-1448
pubmed: 27694958
Genet Sel Evol. 2018 Oct 10;50(1):49
pubmed: 30314431
J Anim Sci. 1992 Dec;70(12):4006-17
pubmed: 1474037
Biol Reprod. 2016 Jan;94(1):19
pubmed: 26607721
Genet Sel Evol. 2016 Feb 19;48:15
pubmed: 26895843
J Anim Sci. 1998 Oct;76(10):2536-41
pubmed: 9814891
Genetica. 2009 Jun;136(2):245-57
pubmed: 18704696
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Apr;101(4):3126-3139
pubmed: 29428760
Genet Sel Evol. 2015 Apr 17;47:29
pubmed: 25887988