Genetic architecture and genomic selection of female reproduction traits in rainbow trout.
Body weight
Egg size
Egg weight
Fecundity
Fish
GWAS
Heritability
QTL
Spawn weight
Spawning date
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Aug 2020
14 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
04
04
2020
accepted:
27
07
2020
entrez:
16
8
2020
pubmed:
17
8
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Rainbow trout is a significant fish farming species under temperate climates. Female reproduction traits play an important role in the economy of breeding companies with the sale of fertilized eggs. The objectives of this study are threefold: to estimate the genetic parameters of female reproduction traits, to determine the genetic architecture of these traits by the identification of quantitative trait loci (QTL), and to assess the expected efficiency of a pedigree-based selection (BLUP) or genomic selection for these traits. A pedigreed population of 1343 trout were genotyped for 57,000 SNP markers and phenotyped for seven traits at 2 years of age: spawning date, female body weight before and after spawning, the spawn weight and the egg number of the spawn, the egg average weight and average diameter. Genetic parameters were estimated in multi-trait linear animal models. Heritability estimates were moderate, varying from 0.27 to 0.44. The female body weight was not genetically correlated to any of the reproduction traits. Spawn weight showed strong and favourable genetic correlation with the number of eggs in the spawn and individual egg size traits, but the egg number was uncorrelated to the egg size traits. The genome-wide association studies showed that all traits were very polygenic since less than 10% of the genetic variance was explained by the cumulative effects of the QTLs: for any trait, only 2 to 4 QTLs were detected that explained in-between 1 and 3% of the genetic variance. Genomic selection based on a reference population of only one thousand individuals related to candidates would improve the efficiency of BLUP selection from 16 to 37% depending on traits. Our genetic parameter estimates made unlikely the hypothesis that selection for growth could induce any indirect improvement for female reproduction traits. It is thus important to consider direct selection for spawn weight for improving egg production traits in rainbow trout breeding programs. Due to the low proportion of genetic variance explained by the few QTLs detected for each reproduction traits, marker assisted selection cannot be effective. However genomic selection would allow significant gains of accuracy compared to pedigree-based selection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Rainbow trout is a significant fish farming species under temperate climates. Female reproduction traits play an important role in the economy of breeding companies with the sale of fertilized eggs. The objectives of this study are threefold: to estimate the genetic parameters of female reproduction traits, to determine the genetic architecture of these traits by the identification of quantitative trait loci (QTL), and to assess the expected efficiency of a pedigree-based selection (BLUP) or genomic selection for these traits.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A pedigreed population of 1343 trout were genotyped for 57,000 SNP markers and phenotyped for seven traits at 2 years of age: spawning date, female body weight before and after spawning, the spawn weight and the egg number of the spawn, the egg average weight and average diameter. Genetic parameters were estimated in multi-trait linear animal models. Heritability estimates were moderate, varying from 0.27 to 0.44. The female body weight was not genetically correlated to any of the reproduction traits. Spawn weight showed strong and favourable genetic correlation with the number of eggs in the spawn and individual egg size traits, but the egg number was uncorrelated to the egg size traits. The genome-wide association studies showed that all traits were very polygenic since less than 10% of the genetic variance was explained by the cumulative effects of the QTLs: for any trait, only 2 to 4 QTLs were detected that explained in-between 1 and 3% of the genetic variance. Genomic selection based on a reference population of only one thousand individuals related to candidates would improve the efficiency of BLUP selection from 16 to 37% depending on traits.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our genetic parameter estimates made unlikely the hypothesis that selection for growth could induce any indirect improvement for female reproduction traits. It is thus important to consider direct selection for spawn weight for improving egg production traits in rainbow trout breeding programs. Due to the low proportion of genetic variance explained by the few QTLs detected for each reproduction traits, marker assisted selection cannot be effective. However genomic selection would allow significant gains of accuracy compared to pedigree-based selection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32795250
doi: 10.1186/s12864-020-06955-7
pii: 10.1186/s12864-020-06955-7
pmc: PMC7430828
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
558Subventions
Organisme : ANRT
ID : N°2017/0239
Organisme : European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
ID : RFEA47 0016 FA 1000016
Organisme : FranceAgrimer
ID : 2017-0239
Références
Mar Biotechnol (NY). 2008 Sep-Oct;10(5):579-92
pubmed: 18491191
Genet Sel Evol. 2019 Jun 6;51(1):26
pubmed: 31170906
Elife. 2016 Feb 04;5:e10851
pubmed: 26841696
Genet Sel Evol. 2011 Jun 21;43:23
pubmed: 21693035
Genetics. 2008 Sep;180(1):611-8
pubmed: 18757934
J Anim Breed Genet. 2016 Dec;133(6):443-451
pubmed: 27087113
Nucleic Acids Res. 2008 Jan;36(Database issue):D768-72
pubmed: 17991680
Genetica. 2009 Jun;136(2):245-57
pubmed: 18704696
Mar Biotechnol (NY). 2014 Feb;16(1):103-10
pubmed: 23912817
Front Genet. 2014 Dec 12;5:432
pubmed: 25566319
Genet Sel Evol. 2017 Feb 1;49(1):17
pubmed: 28148220
BMC Genet. 2016 Jun 21;17(1):88
pubmed: 27328805
Mol Ecol Resour. 2015 May;15(3):662-72
pubmed: 25294387
Mol Genet Genomics. 2007 Jun;277(6):647-61
pubmed: 17308931
Mol Genet Genomics. 2011 Jul;286(1):67-79
pubmed: 21626198
Bioinformatics. 1998;14(8):656-64
pubmed: 9789091
Genetics. 2008 Jan;178(1):83-97
pubmed: 18202360
J Genet. 2011 Aug;90(2):355-60
pubmed: 21869489
Trends Genet. 1997 Apr;13(4):163
pubmed: 9097728
J Hered. 2003 Jul-Aug;94(4):273-84
pubmed: 12920098
Front Genet. 2016 Nov 22;7:203
pubmed: 27920797
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2018 Oct 28;505(2):530-535
pubmed: 30269816
BMC Bioinformatics. 2011 May 23;12:186
pubmed: 21605355
BMC Genomics. 2014 Jun 17;15:478
pubmed: 24935670
Genet Sel Evol. 2016 Jun 29;48(1):47
pubmed: 27357694
Genet Sel Evol. 2010 Feb 19;42:5
pubmed: 20170500
Front Genet. 2014 Nov 21;5:402
pubmed: 25484890
Cell. 2006 Mar 10;124(5):957-71
pubmed: 16530043
J Hered. 2006 Jan-Feb;97(1):74-80
pubmed: 16407529
Genet Sel Evol. 2016 Sep 02;48(1):63
pubmed: 27590176
J Anim Sci. 1975 Jan;40(1):19-28
pubmed: 1110213
BMC Genomics. 2015 Nov 18;16:969
pubmed: 26582102
J Dairy Sci. 2008 Nov;91(11):4414-23
pubmed: 18946147
Mol Genet Genomics. 2019 Jun;294(3):563-571
pubmed: 30635785