Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T04:02:57.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of missing marker genotypes on the accuracy of gene-assisted breeding value estimation: a comparison of methods*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2009

H. A. Mulder ,
T. H. E. Meuwissen ,
M. P. L. Calus  and
R. F. Veerkamp
H. A. Mulder*
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
T. H. E. Meuwissen
Affiliation:
University of Life Sciences, Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, N-1432 Ås, Norway
M. P. L. Calus
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
R. F. Veerkamp
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Animal Sciences Group, Wageningen UR, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB Lelystad, The Netherlands
*
†E-mail: herman.mulder@wur.nl
Get access

Abstract

In livestock populations, missing genotypes on a large proportion of the animals is a major problem when implementing gene-assisted breeding value estimation for genes with known effect. The objective of this study was to compare different methods to deal with missing genotypes on accuracy of gene-assisted breeding value estimation for identified bi-allelic genes using Monte Carlo simulation. A nested full-sib half-sib structure was simulated with a mixed inheritance model with one bi-allelic quantitative trait loci (QTL) and a polygenic effect due to infinite number of polygenes. The effect of the QTL was included in gene-assisted BLUP either by random regression on predicted gene content, i.e. the number of positive alleles, or including haplotype effects in the model with an inverse IBD matrix to account for identity-by-descent relationships between haplotypes using linkage analysis information (IBD–LA). The inverse IBD matrix was constructed using segregation indicator probabilities obtained from multiple marker iterative peeling. Gene contents for unknown genotypes were predicted using either multiple marker iterative peeling or mixed model methodology. For both methods, gene-assisted breeding value estimation increased accuracies of total estimated breeding value (EBV) with 0% to 22% for genotyped animals in comparison to conventional breeding value estimation. For animals that were not genotyped, the increase in accuracy was much lower (0% to 5%), but still substantial when the heritability was 0.1 and when the QTL explained at least 15% of the genetic variance. Regression on predicted gene content yielded higher accuracies than IBD–LA. Allele substitution effects were, however, overestimated, especially when only sires and males in the last generation were genotyped. For juveniles without phenotypic records and traits measured only on females, the superiority of regression on gene content over IBD–LA was larger than when all animals had phenotypes. Missing gene contents were predicted with higher accuracy using multiple-marker iterative peeling than with using mixed model methodology, but the difference in accuracy of total EBV was negligible and mixed model methodology was computationally much faster than multiple iterative peeling. For large livestock populations it can be concluded that gene-assisted breeding value estimation can be practically best performed by regression on gene contents, using mixed model methodology to predict missing marker genotypes, combining phenotypic information of genotyped and ungenotyped animals in one evaluation. This technique would be, in principle, also feasible for genomic selection. It is expected that genomic selection for ungenotyped animals using predicted single nucleotide polymorphism gene contents might be beneficial especially for low heritable traits.

Keywords

gene-assisted breeding value estimationmissing marker genotypesSNPIBDaccuracy
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 9 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was presented at the session ‘Genomics selection and bioinformatics’ of the 59th Annual meeting of the European Association for Animal Production held in Vilnius (Lithuania), 24–27 August 2008. Dr A. Maki-Tanila acted as guest editor.

References

Ansari-Mahyari, S, Sorensen, AC, Lund, MS, Thomsen, H, Berg, P 2008. Across-family marker-assisted selection using selective genotyping strategies in dairy cattle breeding schemes. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1628–1639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baruch, E, Weller, JI 2009. Incorporation of genotype effects into animal model evaluations when only a small proportion of the population has been genotyped. Animal 3, 16–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulmer, MG 1971. The effect of selection on genetic variability. American Naturalist 105, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekkers, JCM 2004. Commercial application of marker- and gene-assisted selection in livestock: strategies and lessons. Journal of Animal Science 82 (suppl.), E313–E328.Google ScholarPubMed
Dekkers, JCM, Van der Werf, JHJ 2007. Strategies, limitations and opportunities for marker-assisted selection in livestock. In Marker-assisted selection: current status and future perspectives in crops, livestock, forestry and fish (ed. EP Guimaraes, J Ruane, BD Scherf, A Sonnino and JD Dargie), pp. 167–184. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Fernando, RL, Grossman, M 1989. Marker assisted selection using best linear unbiased prediction. Genetics Selection Evolution 21, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernando, RL, Stricker, C, Elston, RC 1993. An efficient algorithm to compute the posterior genotypic distribution for every member of a pedigree without loops. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 87, 89–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gengler, N, Mayeres, P, Szydlowski, M 2007. A simple method to approximate gene content in large pedigree populations: application to the myostatin gene in dual-purpose Belgian Blue cattle. Animal 1, 21–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gengler, N, Abras, S, Verkenne, C, Vanderick, S, Szydlowski, M, Renaville, R 2008. Accuracy of prediction of gene content in large animal populations and its use for candidate gene detection and genetic evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1652–1659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, ME 2009. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica 136, 245–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grisart, N, Coppieters, W, Farnir, F, Karim, L, Ford, C, Berzi, P, Cambisamo, N, Mni, MRS, Simon, P, Spelman, R, Georges, M, Snell, R 2002. Positional candidate cloning of a QTL in dairy cattle: identification of a missense mutation in the bovine DGAT1 gene with major effect on milk yield and composition. Genome Research 12, 222–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haldane, JBS 1919. The combination of linkage values and the calculation of distances between the loci of linked factors. Journal of Genetics 8, 299–309.Google Scholar
Hill, WG, Robertson, A 1968. Linkage disequilibrium in finite populations. Theoretical Applied Genetics 38, 226–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoeschele, I 1993. Elimination of quantitative trait loci equations in an animal model incorporating genetic marker data. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 1693–1713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Israel, C, Weller, JI 1998. Estimation of candidate gene effects in dairy cattle populations. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 1653–1662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lande, R, Thompson, R 1990. Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics 124, 743–756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidauer, M, Stranden, I 1999. Fast and flexible program for genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. In Proceedings of the Computational Cattle Breeding ‘99 Workshop, March 18–20, 1999, Tuusala, Finland. Interbull Bulletin 20, pp. 20–25.Google Scholar
Martens, H, Naess, T 1989. Multivariate calibration. Wiley, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, THE 2006. Determining haplotypes and IBD-probabilities from dense-marker genotypes in large complex pedigrees. In Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Communication 20–12, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, THE, Luo, Z 1992. Computing inbreeding coefficients in large populations. Genetics Selection Evolution 24, 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwissen, THE, Goddard, ME 1996. The use of marker haplotypes in animal breeding schemes. Genetics Selection Evolution 28, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwissen, THE, Goddard, ME 1999. Marker assisted estimation of breeding values when marker information is missing on many animals. Genetics Selection Evolution 31, 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwissen, THE, Hayes, BJ, Goddard, ME 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819–1829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, THE, Karlsen, A, Lien, S, Olsaker, I, Goddard, ME 2002. Fine mapping of a quantitative trait locus for twinning rate using combined linkage and linkage disequilibrium mapping. Genetics 161, 373–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thallman, RM, Bennett, GL, Keele, JW, Kappes, SM 2001a. Efficient computation of genotype probabilities for loci with many alleles: I. Allelic peeling. Journal of Animal Science 79, 26–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thallman, RM, Bennett, GL, Keele, JW, Kappes, SM 2001b. Efficient computation of genotype probabilities for loci with many alleles: II. Iterative method for large, complex pedigrees. Journal of Animal Science 79, 34–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Totir, LR, Fernando, RL, Dekkers, JCM, Fernandez, SA, Guldbrandtsen, B 2004. The effect of using approximate gametic variance covariance matrices on marker assisted selection by BLUP. Genetics Selection Evolution 36, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Arendonk, JAM, Smith, C, Kennedy, BW 1989. Method to estimate genotype probabilities at individual loci in farm livestock. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 78, 735–740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Laere, A-S, Nguyen, M, Braunschweig, M, Nezer, C, Collete, C, Moreau, L, Archibald, AL, Haley, CS, Buys, N, Tally, M, Andersson, G, Georges, M, Andersson, L 2003. A regulatory mutation in IGF2 causes a major QTL effect on muscle growth in pigs. Nature 425, 832–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanRaden, PM 2008. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4414–4423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villanueva, B, Pong-Wong, R, Woolliams, JA 2002. Marker assisted selection with optimised contributions of the candidates to selection. Genetics Selection Evolution 34, 679–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weller, JI 2001. Quantitative trait loci analysis in animals. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, JI 2007. Marker-assisted selection in dairy cattle. In Marker-assisted selection: current status and future perspectives in crops, livestock, forestry and fish (ed. EP Guimaraes, J Ruane, BD Scherf, A Sonnino and JD Dargie), pp. 197–228. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Winter, A, Kramer, W, Werner, FAO, Kollers, S, Kata, S, Durstewitz, G, Buitkamp, J, Womack, JE, Thaller, G, Fries, R 2002. Association of a lysine-232/alanine polymorphism in a bovine gene encoding acyl-CoA: diacylglycerol acyltransferase (DGAT1) with variation at a quantitative trait locus for milk fat content. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99, 9300–9305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar