scholarly journals Comparison of genomic predictions for lowly heritable traits using multi-step and single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in Holstein cattle

2018 ◽  
Vol 101 (9) ◽  
pp. 8076-8086 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.R. Guarini ◽  
D.A.L. Lourenco ◽  
L.F. Brito ◽  
M. Sargolzaei ◽  
C.F. Baes ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 94 (12) ◽  
pp. 5004-5013 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. O. Fragomeni ◽  
D. A. L. Lourenco ◽  
S. Tsuruta ◽  
H. L. Bradford ◽  
K. A. Gray ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ignacy Misztal ◽  
Shogo Tsuruta ◽  
Ivan Pocrnic ◽  
Daniela Lourenco

Abstract Single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction with the Algorithm for Proven and Young (APY) is a popular method for large-scale genomic evaluations. With the APY algorithm, animals are designated as core or noncore, and the computing resources to create the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix (GRM) are reduced by inverting only a portion of that matrix for core animals. However, using different core sets of the same size causes fluctuations in genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) up to one additive standard deviation without affecting prediction accuracy. About 2% of the variation in the GRM is noise. In the recursion formula for APY, the error term modeling the noise is different for every set of core animals, creating changes in breeding values. While average changes are small, and correlations between breeding values estimated with different core animals are close to 1.0, based on the normal distribution theory, outliers can be several times bigger than the average. Tests included commercial datasets from beef and dairy cattle and from pigs. Beyond a certain number of core animals, the prediction accuracy did not improve, but fluctuations decreased with more animals. Fluctuations were much smaller than the possible changes based on prediction error variance. GEBVs change over time even for animals with no new data as genomic relationships ties all the genotyped animals, causing reranking of top animals. In contrast, changes in nongenomic models without new data are small. Also, GEBV can change due to details in the model, such as redefinition of contemporary groups or unknown parent groups. In particular, increasing the fraction of blending of the GRM with a pedigree relationship matrix from 5% to 20% caused changes in GEBV up to 0.45 SD, with a correlation of GEBV > 0.99. Fluctuations in genomic predictions are part of genomic evaluation models and are also present without the APY algorithm when genomic evaluations are computed with updated data. The best approach to reduce the impact of fluctuations in genomic evaluations is to make selection decisions not on individual animals with limited individual accuracy but on groups of animals with high average accuracy.


2020 ◽  
pp. 1520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adonai Alejandro Amaya-Martínez ◽  
Rodrigo Martínez S. ◽  
Mario Fernando Cerón-Muñoz

Objective. To estimate genetic parameters for weight at eight months of age (W8M), age at first calving (AFC) and first calving interval (FCI) using pedigree and genomic relationship. Materials and methods. Phenotypic data on 481, 3063 and 1098 animals for W8M, AFC and FCI were used, respectively. The genomic information came from a population of 718 genotyped animals with a density chip of 30,106 single nucleotide polymorphism markers (SNP). Univariate and bivariate models were used under the conventional (BLUP) and single step genomic best linear unbiased predictor (ssGBLUP) methodologies. Results. The heritabilities for W8M, AFC and FCI ranged from 0.25 to 0.26, from 0.20 to 0.22 and from 0.04 to 0.08, respectively. The AFC and FCI models under ssGBLUP slightly decreased the error and increased the additive genetic variance, respectively. Conclusions. The inclusion of genomic information slightly increases the accuracy of the genetic estimates in this population. However, a larger amount of genotyped animals and with a higher genetic relationship connectivity would allow breeders to increase the potential of the ssGBLUP methodology in Colombian Simmental cattle.


2016 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 1968-1974 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Masuda ◽  
I. Misztal ◽  
S. Tsuruta ◽  
A. Legarra ◽  
I. Aguilar ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 94 (3) ◽  
pp. 909-919 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. A. L. Lourenco ◽  
S. Tsuruta ◽  
B. O. Fragomeni ◽  
C. Y. Chen ◽  
W. O. Herring ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 98 (6) ◽  
pp. 4090-4094 ◽  
Author(s):  
B.O. Fragomeni ◽  
D.A.L. Lourenco ◽  
S. Tsuruta ◽  
Y. Masuda ◽  
I. Aguilar ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document