scholarly journals Assessment of genomic prediction accuracy using different selection and evaluation approaches in a simulated Korean beef cattle population

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (12) ◽  
pp. 1912-1921
Author(s):  
Chiemela Peter Nwogwugwu ◽  
Yeongkuk Kim ◽  
Hyunji Choi ◽  
Jun Heon Lee ◽  
Seung-Hwan Lee
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Genomic Prediction ◽  
Prediction Accuracy ◽  
Phenotypic Selection ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Breeding Value ◽  
Marker Density ◽  
Selection Methods ◽  
Genetic Evaluations ◽  
Weighted Values

Objective: This study assessed genomic prediction accuracies based on different selection methods, evaluation procedures, training population (TP) sizes, heritability (h<sup>2</sup>) levels, marker densities and pedigree error (PE) rates in a simulated Korean beef cattle population.Methods: A simulation was performed using two different selection methods, phenotypic and estimated breeding value (EBV), with an h<sup>2</sup> of 0.1, 0.3, or 0.5 and marker densities of 10, 50, or 777K. A total of 275 males and 2,475 females were randomly selected from the last generation to simulate ten recent generations. The simulation of the PE dataset was modified using only the EBV method of selection with a marker density of 50K and a heritability of 0.3. The proportions of errors substituted were 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40%, respectively. Genetic evaluations were performed using genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) with different weighted values. The accuracies of the predictions were determined.Results: Compared with phenotypic selection, the results revealed that the prediction accuracies obtained using GBLUP and ssGBLUP increased across heritability levels and TP sizes during EBV selection. However, an increase in the marker density did not yield higher accuracy in either method except when the h<sup>2</sup> was 0.3 under the EBV selection method. Based on EBV selection with a heritability of 0.1 and a marker density of 10K, GBLUP and ssGBLUP_0.95 prediction accuracy was higher than that obtained by phenotypic selection. The prediction accuracies from ssGBLUP_0.95 outperformed those from the GBLUP method across all scenarios. When errors were introduced into the pedigree dataset, the prediction accuracies were only minimally influenced across all scenarios.Conclusion: Our study suggests that the use of ssGBLUP_0.95, EBV selection, and low marker density could help improve genetic gains in beef cattle.

scholarly journals Optimal breeding-value prediction using a Sparse Selection Index

Genetics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Lopez-Cruz ◽  
Gustavo de los Campos
Keyword(s):  
Sample Size ◽  
Dna Sequences ◽  
Genomic Prediction ◽  
Prediction Accuracy ◽  
Regularization Parameter ◽  
Selection Index ◽  
Prediction Method ◽  
Training Data ◽  
Breeding Value ◽  
Data Set

Abstract Genomic prediction uses DNA sequences and phenotypes to predict genetic values. In homogeneous populations, theory indicates that the accuracy of genomic prediction increases with sample size. However, differences in allele frequencies and in linkage disequilibrium patterns can lead to heterogeneity in SNP effects. In this context, calibrating genomic predictions using a large, potentially heterogeneous, training data set may not lead to optimal prediction accuracy. Some studies tried to address this sample size/homogeneity trade-off using training set optimization algorithms; however, this approach assumes that a single training data set is optimum for all individuals in the prediction set. Here, we propose an approach that identifies, for each individual in the prediction set, a subset from the training data (i.e., a set of support points) from which predictions are derived. The methodology that we propose is a Sparse Selection Index (SSI) that integrates Selection Index methodology with sparsity-inducing techniques commonly used for high-dimensional regression. The sparsity of the resulting index is controlled by a regularization parameter (λ); the G-BLUP (the prediction method most commonly used in plant and animal breeding) appears as a special case which happens when λ = 0. In this study, we present the methodology and demonstrate (using two wheat data sets with phenotypes collected in ten different environments) that the SSI can achieve significant (anywhere between 5-10%) gains in prediction accuracy relative to the G-BLUP.

scholarly journals Genomic Prediction Using Alternative Strategies of Weighted Single-Step Genomic BLUP for Yearling Weight and Carcass Traits in Hanwoo Beef Cattle

Genes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 266
Author(s):  
Hossein Mehrban ◽  
Masoumeh Naserkheil ◽  
Deuk Hwan Lee ◽  
Chungil Cho ◽  
Taejeong Choi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Trait Loci ◽  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Genomic Prediction ◽  
Quantitative Trait ◽  
Carcass Traits ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Linear Unbiased Prediction ◽  
Single Nucleotide ◽  
Best Linear Unbiased

The weighted single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) method has been proposed to exploit information from genotyped and non-genotyped relatives, allowing the use of weights for single-nucleotide polymorphism in the construction of the genomic relationship matrix. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of genetic prediction using the following single-trait best linear unbiased prediction methods in Hanwoo beef cattle: pedigree-based (PBLUP), un-weighted (ssGBLUP), and weighted (WssGBLUP) single-step genomic methods. We also assessed the impact of alternative single and window weighting methods according to their effects on the traits of interest. The data was comprised of 15,796 phenotypic records for yearling weight (YW) and 5622 records for carcass traits (backfat thickness: BFT, carcass weight: CW, eye muscle area: EMA, and marbling score: MS). Also, the genotypic data included 6616 animals for YW and 5134 for carcass traits on the 43,950 single-nucleotide polymorphisms. The ssGBLUP showed significant improvement in genomic prediction accuracy for carcass traits (71%) and yearling weight (99%) compared to the pedigree-based method. The window weighting procedures performed better than single SNP weighting for CW (11%), EMA (11%), MS (3%), and YW (6%), whereas no gain in accuracy was observed for BFT. Besides, the improvement in accuracy between window WssGBLUP and the un-weighted method was low for BFT and MS, while for CW, EMA, and YW resulted in a gain of 22%, 15%, and 20%, respectively, which indicates the presence of relevant quantitative trait loci for these traits. These findings indicate that WssGBLUP is an appropriate method for traits with a large quantitative trait loci effect.

Results of multivariate individual animal model genetic evaluations of british pedigree beef cattle

1997 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-207 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. E. Crumps ◽  
G. Simm ◽  
D. Nicholson ◽  
R. H. Findlay ◽  
J. G. E. Bryan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Animal Model ◽  
Birth Weight ◽  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Breeding Value ◽  
Individual Animal ◽  
Group Sex ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Genetic Evaluations ◽  
Genetic Trends

AbstractThis paper reports the procedures put into place in the UK for the genetic evaluation of pedigree beef cattle and estimation of genetic trends using a comprehensive model to allow critical analysis of progress made under previous data recording schemes. Live weights of Simmental, Limousin, Charolais, South Devon and Aberdeen Angus beef cattle, recorded by the Meat and Livestock Commission (MLC) from 1970 to 1992 were analysed, as part of a project to introduce best linear unbiased predictions (BLUP) of breeding value in the British beef industry. Birth weights were available from MLC or the relevant breed society, (4000 to 84000 records, depending on the breed) and 200- and 400-day weights were estimated by within-animal linear regression on all available weights (resulting in 8000 to 48000 records per breed). Animals were retrospectively assigned to contemporary groups within herds, separately for each trait, taking account of observed calving patterns. Records were adjusted to correct for heterogeneity of variance between herds. BLUP evaluations were then performed within breed, fitting a multivariate individual animal model. In addition to additive direct genetic effects, additive maternal genetic and dam permanent environmental effects were included for birth weight and 200-day weight. Unknown parents were assigned to genetic groups, based on estimated date of birth. The model included fixed effects for contemporary group, sex, month of birth, birth type (single or multiple), embryo transfer births, fostered calves, breed of dam, proportion purebred and age of dam. Genetic trends were estimated by regressing estimated breeding values for animals on their year of birth. Trends in birth weight, 200-day weight and 400-day weight between 1970 and 1992 were approximately 0·09, 0·73 and 1·38 kg per annum respectively for the Charolais breed; 0·08, 0·76 and 1·33 kg per annum for the Simmental; 0·06, 0·53 and 0·89 kg per annum for the Limousin; 0·12, 1·02 and 1·86 kg per annum for the Aberdeen Angus; and 0·03, 0·38 and 0·82 kg per annum for the South Devon breed.

scholarly journals 61 The impact of selective phenotyping and genotyping over generations in beef cattle

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 37-39
Author(s):  
Andrea Plotzki Reis ◽  
Rodrigo Fagundes da Costa ◽  
Fabyano Fonseca e Silva ◽  
Fernando Flores Cardoso ◽  
Matthew L Spangler
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Prediction Accuracy ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Breeding Values ◽  
Additional Information ◽  
Economic Framework ◽  
Estimated Breeding Values ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The aim of this study was to investigate selective phenotyping to maintain adequate prediction accuracy. A simulation was conducted, with 10 replicates, using QMSim to mimic the structure and size of a Braford population. A population with 50 generations, 500 animals per generation, was created with phenotyping and genotyping beginning in generation 11. The scenarios investigated were: 1) Randomly phenotype and genotype 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100% of individuals each generation and; 2) Randomly phenotype and genotype 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100% of individuals in every-other generation. Estimated breeding values (EBV) were obtained using single-step GBLUP and accuracy was determined as the correlation between true BV from simulation and those estimated from the blupf90 family of programs. For scenarios where phenotyping and genotyping occurred every generation, EBV accuracies in generation 11 and 50 ranged from 0.32 to 0.32, 0.42 to 0.43, 0.49 to 0.51, 0.53 to 0.56 and 0.57 to 0.59 when 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100% of animals were chosen, respectively. The highest accuracies were 0.40 and 0.50 in generation 38 for scenarios 10 and 25%; 0.56, 0.61 and 0.64 in generation 40 for scenarios 50, 75 and 100%, respectively. When animals were selected every-other generation, EBV accuracy in generation 11 and 50 ranged from 0.24 to 0.26, 0.36 to 0.36, 0.43 to 0.42, 0.48 to 0.44 and 0.53 to 0.48 for 10, 25, 50, 75 and 100% of selected animals, respectively. The highest accuracies were in generation 23 for scenario 10% (0.31), in generation 37 for scenarios 25 (0.43), 50 (0.50) and 75% (0.55) and in generation 39 for 100% (0.59). Although increasing the density of phenotyped and genotyped animals increased prediction accuracy, some gains were marginal. These differences in accuracy must be contemplated in an economic framework to determine the cost-benefit of additional information.

scholarly journals Genomic Prediction in Pea: Effect of Marker Density and Training Population Size and Composition on Prediction Accuracy

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadim Tayeh ◽  
Anthony Klein ◽  
Marie-Christine Le Paslier ◽  
Françoise Jacquin ◽  
Hervé Houtin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Population Size ◽  
Genomic Prediction ◽  
Prediction Accuracy ◽  
Marker Density ◽  
Training Population ◽  
And Training

A comprehensive comparison between single- and two-step GBLUP methods in a simulated beef cattle population

2018 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 565-575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mario L. Piccoli ◽  
Luiz F. Brito ◽  
José Braccini ◽  
Fernanda V. Brito ◽  
Fernando F. Cardoso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Production Systems ◽  
Simulated Data ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Breeding Values ◽  
True Breeding ◽  
Blending Method ◽  
Estimated Breeding Values ◽  
Genetic Evaluations ◽  
Genomic Predictions

The statistical methods used in the genetic evaluations are a key component of the process and can be best compared by using simulated data. The latter is especially true in grazing beef cattle production systems, where the number of proven bulls with highly reliable estimated breeding values is limited to allow for a trustworthy validation of genomic predictions. Therefore, we simulated data for 4980 beef cattle aiming to compare single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP), which simultaneously incorporates pedigree, phenotypic, and genomic data into genomic evaluations, and two-step GBLUP (tsGBLUP) procedures and genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) blending methods. The greatest increases in GEBV accuracies compared with the parents’ average estimated breeding values (EBVPA) were 0.364 and 0.341 for ssGBLUP and tsGBLUP, respectively. Direct genomic value and GEBV accuracies when using ssGBLUP and tsGBLUP procedures were similar, except for the GEBV accuracies using Hayes’ blending method in tsGBLUP. There was no significant or slight bias in genomic predictions from ssGBLUP or tsGBLUP (using VanRaden’s blending method), indicating that these predictions are on the same scale compared with the true breeding values. Overall, genetic evaluations including genomic information resulted in gains in accuracy >100% compared with the EBVPA. In addition, there were no significant differences between the selected animals (10% males and 50% females) by using ssGBLUP or tsGBLUP.

Genomic prediction in Japanese Black cattle: application of a single-step approach to beef cattle

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Onogi ◽  
A. Ogino ◽  
T. Komatsu ◽  
N. Shoji ◽  
K. Simizu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Beef Cattle ◽  
Genomic Prediction ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Japanese Black Cattle
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document