Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T06:09:25.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Count Bayesian models for genetic analysis of in vitro embryo production traits in Guzerá cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

B. C. Perez ,
F. F Silva ,
R. V. Ventura ,
F. A. T Bruneli ,
J. C. C. Balieiro  and
M. G. D. C. Peixoto
B. C. Perez*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, College of Animals Science and Food Engineering, University of São Paulo (FZEA/USP), Pirassununga, 13630-000 São Paulo, Brazil
F. F Silva
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, 36570-900 Minas Gerais, Brazil
R. V. Ventura
Affiliation:
Beef Improvement Opportunities (BIO), Elora, N1K 1E5 Ontario, Canada Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, N1G 2W1 Ontario, Canadá
F. A. T Bruneli
Affiliation:
National Center of Research on Dairy Cattle, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation(CNPGL/EMBRAPA), Juiz de Fora, 36038-330 Minas Gerais, Brazil
J. C. C. Balieiro
Affiliation:
College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of São Paulo (FMVZ/USP), Pirassununga, 13630-000 São Paulo, Brazil
M. G. D. C. Peixoto
Affiliation:
National Center of Research on Dairy Cattle, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation(CNPGL/EMBRAPA), Juiz de Fora, 36038-330 Minas Gerais, Brazil
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Four models for in vitro embryo production traits in Guzerá cattle were compared: Gaussian (untransformed variable – LIN and transformed in logarithmic scale – LOG), Poisson (POI) and zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP). Data consisted of 5716 ovum pick-up and in vitro fertilization records performed in 1205 cows from distinct regions of Brazil. Analyzed count traits were the number of viable oocytes (NOV), number of grade I oocytes (NGI), number of degenerated oocytes (NDG), number of cleaved embryos (NCLV) and number of viable produced embryos (NEMB). Heritability varied from 0.17 (LIN) to 0.25 (POI) for NOV; 0.08 (LOG) to 0.18 (ZIP) for NGI; 0.12 (LIN) to 0.20 (POI) for NDG; 0.13 (LIN) to 0.19 (POI) for NCLV; 0.10 (LIN) to 0.20 (POI) for NEMB depending on the considered model. The estimated repeatability varied from 0.53 (LOG) to 0.63 (POI) for NOV; 0.22 (LOG) to 0.39 (ZIP) for NGI; 0.29 (LIN) to 0.42 (ZIP) for NDG; 0.42 (LIN) to 0.59 (POI) for NCLV; 0.36 (LIN) to 0.51 (POI) for NEMB. The goodness of fit, measured by deviance information criterion and mean squared residuals, suggested superiority of POI and ZIP over Gaussian models. Estimated breeding values (EBV) obtained by different models were highly correlated, varying from 0.92 for NOV (between LIN-POI) and 0.99 for NGI (between POI-ZIP). The number of coincident animals on the 10% top EBV showed lower similarities. We recommend POI and ZIP models as the most adequate for genetic analysis of in vitro embryo production traits in Guzerá cattle.

Keywords

GLMin vitro fertilizationmodel comparisonovum pick-upzebu cattle
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 9 , September 2017 , pp. 1440 - 1448
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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.)

References

Abdolahi-Arpanahi, R, Peñagaricano, F, Aliloo, H, Ghiasi, H and Urioste, JI 2013. Comparison of Poisson, probit and linear models for genetic analysis of number of inseminations to conception and success at first insemination in Iranian Holstein cows. Livestock Science 153, 20–26.Google Scholar
Ayres, DR, Pereira, RJ, Boligon, AA, Silva, FF, Schenkel, FS, Roso, VM and Albuquerque, LG 2013. Linear and Poisson models for genetic evaluation of tick resistance in cross-bred Hereford×Nellore cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 130, 417–424.Google Scholar
Bols, PEJ, Goovaerts, IGF, Jorssen, EPA, Petro, EML, Langbeen, A and Leroy, JLMR 2012. New applications for bovine IVP technology: from ‘single oocyte culture’ to toxicity screening. Animal Reproduction 9, 388–394.Google Scholar
Geweke, J 1992. Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments. In Bayesian statistics 4 (ed. JM Bernardo, JO Berger, AP Dawid and AFM Smith), pp. 625–631. Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gianola, D and Rosa, GJM 2015. One hundred years of statistical developments in animal breeding. Annual Revenue of Animal Biosciences 3, 19–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadfield, JD and Nakagawa, S 2010. General quantitative genetic methods for comparative biology: phylogenies, taxonomies and multi-trait models for continuous and categorical characters. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 23, 494–508.Google Scholar
Heidelberger, P and Welch, PD 1983. Simulation run length control in the presence of an initial transient. Operations Research Landing 31, 1109–1144.Google Scholar
Jaton, C, Koeck, A, Sargolzaei, M, Malchiodi, F, Price, CA, Schenkel, FS and Miglior, F 2016. Genetic analysis of superovulatory response of Holstein cows in Canada. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 3612–3623.Google Scholar
König, S, Bosselmann, F, Von Borstel, U and Simianer, H 2007. Genetic analyses of traits affecting the success of embryo transfer in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3945–3954.Google Scholar
Lonergan, P 1992. Studies in the in vitro maturation, fertilization and cultivation of bovine follicular oocytes. Doctoral thesis, National University of Ireland.Google Scholar
Merton, JS, Ask, B, Oonkundi, DC, Mullaart, E, Collenbrander, B and Nielen, M 2009. Genetic parameters for oocyte number and embryo production within a bovine ovum pick-up-in vitro production embryo-production program. Theriogenology 72, 885–893.Google Scholar
Naya, H, Urioste, JI, Chang, Y, Rodrigues-Motta, M, Kremer, R and Gianola, DA 2008. Comparison between Poison and zero-inflated Poisson regression models with application number of black spots in Corriedale sheep. Genetic Selection Evolution 40, 379–394.Google Scholar
Peixoto, MG, Pereira, CS, Bergmann, JA, Penna, VM and Fonseca, CG 2004. Genetic parameters of multiple ovulation traits in Nellore females. Theriogenology 62, 1459–1464.Google Scholar
Peñagaricano, F, Urioste, JI, Naya, H, De Los Campos, G and Gianola, D 2010. Assessment of Poisson, probit and linear models for genetic analysis of presence and number of black spots in Corriedale sheep. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 128, 105–113.Google Scholar
Perez, BC, Peixoto, MGCD, Bruneli, FT, Ramos, PVB and Balieiro, JCC 2016. Genetic analysis of oocyte and embryo production traits in Guzerá breed donors and their associations with age at first calving. Genetics and Molecular Research 15, gmr.15027583.Google Scholar
Pérez-Cabal, MA, De Los Campos, G, Vazquez, AI, Gianola, D, Rosa, GJ, Weigel, KA and Alenda, R 2009. Genetic evaluation of susceptibility to clinical mastitis in Spanish Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3472–3480.Google Scholar
Plummer, M, Best, N, Cowles, K and Vines, K 2006. CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News 6, 7–11.Google Scholar
Raftery, AE and Lewis, LM 1992. Comment: one long run with diagnostics: implementation strategies for Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Statistical Science 7, 493–497.Google Scholar
Seneda, MM, Esper, CR, Garcia, JM, Oliveira, JA and Vantini, R 2001. Relationship between follicle size and ultrasound-guided transvaginal oocyte recovery. Animal Reproduction Science 67, 37–43.Google Scholar
Spiegelhalter, DJ, Best, NG, Carlin, BP and van der Linde, A 2002. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 64, 583–639.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2016. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved on 2nd of April 2016 from http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, CFM 2015. Historical context of cattle embryo transfer technique in Brazil. Animal Reproduction 11, 137–140.Google Scholar
Rodrigues-Motta, M, Gianola, D and Heringstad, B 2010. A mixed effects model for overdispersed zero inflated Poisson data with an application in animal breeding. Journal of Data Science 8, 379–396.Google Scholar
Rodrigues-Motta, M, Gianola, D, Heringstad, B, Rosa, GJM and Chang, YM 2007. A zero-inflated Poisson model for genetic analysis of the number of mastitis cases in Norwegian red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5306–5315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tonhati, H, Lôbo, RB and Oliveira, HN 1999. Repeatability and heritability of response to superovulation in Holstein cows. Theriogenology 51, 1151–1156.Google Scholar
Varona, L and Sørensen, D 2010. A genetic analysis of mortality in pigs. Genetics 184, 277–284.Google Scholar
Vazquez, AI, Pérez-Cabal, MA, Heringstad, B, Rodrigues-Motta, M, Rosa, GJ, Gianola, D and Weigel, KA 2012. Predictive ability of alternative models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 129, 120–128.Google Scholar
Vazquez, AI, Gianola, D, Bates, D, Weigel, KA and Heringstad, B 2009a. Assessment of Poisson, logit, and linear models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in Norwegian red cows. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 739–748.Google Scholar
Vazquez, AI, Weigel, KA, Gianola, D, Bates, DM, Perez-Cabal, MA, Rosa, GJ and Chang, YM 2009b. Poisson versus threshold models for genetic analysis of clinical mastitis in US Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5239–5247.Google Scholar
Ventura, HT, Silva, FF, Varona, L, Figueiredo, EAP, Costa, EV, Silva, LP, Ventura, RV and Lopes, PS 2015. Comparing multi-trait Poisson and Gaussian Bayesian models for genetic evaluation of litter traits in pigs. Livestock Science 176, 47–53.Google Scholar
Viana, JHM, Siqueira, LGB, Palhao, MP and Camargo, LSA 2012. Features and perspectives of the Brazilian in vitro embryo industry. Animal Reproduction 9, 12–18.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Perez supplementary material

Perez supplementary material 1

Download Perez supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 196.1 KB