Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:00:59.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of different response variables in genomic prediction using GBLUP and ssGBLUP methods in Iranian Holstein cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2022

Mohamadreza Afrazandeh ,
Rostam Abdolahi-Arpanahi ,
Mokhtar Ali Abbasi ,
Nasser Emam Jomeh Kashan  and
Rasoul Vaez Torshizi
Mohamadreza Afrazandeh
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture Sciences and Food Industries, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Rostam Abdolahi-Arpanahi*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Dairy Science, College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Georgia, Athens, USA
Mokhtar Ali Abbasi
Affiliation:
Animal Science Research Institute of Iran, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Karaj, Iran
Nasser Emam Jomeh Kashan
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture Sciences and Food Industries, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Rasoul Vaez Torshizi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
*
Author for correspondence: Rostam Abdolahi-Arpanahi, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compared the reliability and bias of genomic evaluation of Holstein bulls for milk, fat, and protein yield with two methods of genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP). Four response variables of estimated breeding value (EBV), daughter yield deviation (DYD), de-regressed proofs based on Garrick (DRPGR) and VanRaden (DRPVR) were used as dependent variables. The effects of three weighting methods for diagonal elements of the incidence matrix associated with residuals were also explored. The reliability and the absolute deviation from 1 of the regression coefficient of the response variable on genomic prediction (Dev) using GBLUP and ssGBLUP methods were estimated in the validation population. In the ssGBLUP method, the genomic prediction reliability and Dev from un-weighted DRPGR method for milk yield were 0.44 and 0.002, respectively. In the GBLUP method, the corresponding measurements from un-weighted EBV for fat were 0.52 and 0.008, respectively. Moreover, the un-weighted DRPGR performed well in ssGBLUP with fat yield values for reliability and Dev of 0.49 and 0.001, respectively, compared to equivalent protein yield values of 0.38 and 0.056, respectively. In general, the results from ssGBLUP of the un-weighted DRPGR for milk and fat yield and weighted DRPGR for protein yield outperformed other models. The average reliability of genomic predictions for three traits from ssGBLUP was 0.39 which was 0.98% higher than the average reliability from GBLUP. Likewise, the Dev of genomic predictions was lower in ssGBLUP than GBLUP. The average Dev of predictions for three traits from ssGBLUP and GBLUP were 0.110 and 0.144, respectively. In conclusion, genomic prediction using ssGBLUP outperformed GBLUP both in terms of reliability and bias.

Keywords

Daughter yield deviationde-regressed proofgenomic selectionresponse variable
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 89 , Issue 2 , May 2022 , pp. 121 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hannah Dairy Research Foundation

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

Aguilar, I, Misztal, I, Johnson, D, Legarra, A, Tsuruta, S and Lawlor, T (2010) Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 743–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calus, M, Vandenplas, J, Ten Napel, J and Veerkamp, R (2016) Validation of simultaneous deregression of cow and bull breeding values and derivation of appropriate weights. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 6403–6419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, OF and Lund, MS (2010) Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genetics Selection Evolution 42, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forni, S, Aguilar, I and Misztal, I (2011) Different genomic relationship matrices for single-step analysis using phenotypic, pedigree and genomic information. Genetics Selection Evolution 43, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gao, H, Christensen, OF, Madsen, P, Nielsen, US, Zhang, Y, Lund, MS and Su, G (2012) Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single-step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population. Genetics Selection Evolution 44, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrick, DJ, Taylor, JF and Fernando, RL (2009) Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, M (1985) A method of comparing sires evaluated in different countries. Livestock Production Science 13, 321–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, M (2009) Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica 136, 245–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, G, Lund, M, Zhang, Y and Su, G (2010) Comparison between genomic predictions using daughter yield deviation and conventional estimated breeding value as response variables. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 127, 423–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayes, BJ, Bowman, PJ, Chamberlain, AJ and Goddard, ME (2009) Invited review: genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 433–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jairath, L, Dekkers, J, Schaeffer, L, Liu, Z, Burnside, E and Kolstad, B (1998) Genetic evaluation for herd life in Canada. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 550–562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koivula, M, Strandén, I, Su, G and Mäntysaari, EA (2012) Different methods to calculate genomic predictions—comparisons of BLUP at the single nucleotide polymorphism level (SNP-BLUP), BLUP at the individual level (G-BLUP), and the one-step approach (H-BLUP). Journal of Dairy Science 95, 4065–4073.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legarra, A, Aguilar, I and Misztal, I (2009) A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 4656–4663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Misztal, I (2017) Studies on inflation of GEBV in single-step GBLUP for type. interbull bulletin 51.Google Scholar
Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Strabel, T, Auvray, B, Druet, T and Lee, D (2002) BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90). In Proceedings of the 7th world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, pp. 743–744.Google Scholar
Misztal, I, Aguilar, I, Johnson, D, Legarra, A, Tsuruta, S and Lawlor, T (2009) A unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree and genomic information for a genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. Interbull Bulletin 40, 240–240.Google Scholar
Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Aguilar, I, Legarra, A, VanRaden, P and Lawlor, T (2013) Methods to approximate reliabilities in single-step genomic evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 647–654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Misztal, I, Lourenco, D and Legarra, A (2020) Current status of genomic evaluation. Journal of Animal Science 98, 101–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mrode, RA (2014) Linear Models for the Prediction of Animal Breeding Values. CABI, Wallingford, UK.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, HR, Silva, FF, Brito, L, Rocha Guarini, A, Jamrozik, J and Schenkel, F (2018) Comparing deregression methods for genomic prediction of test-day traits in dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 135, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliveira, HR, Lourenco, DAL, Masuda, Y, Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Jamrozik, J, Brito, LF, Silva, FF and Schenkel, FS (2019) Application of single-step genomic evaluation using multiple-trait random regression test-day models in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 102, 2365–2377.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sargolzaei, M, Chesnais, JP and Schenkel, FS (2014) A new approach for efficient genotype imputation using information from relatives. BMC Genomics 15, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Song, H, Li, L, Zhang, Q, Zhang, S and Ding, X (2018) Accuracy and bias of genomic prediction with different de-regression methods. Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience 12, 1111–1117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tsuruta, S, Misztal, I, Aguilar, I and Lawlor, T (2011) Multiple-trait genomic evaluation of linear type traits using genomic and phenotypic data in US holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 4198–4204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandenplas, J and Gengler, N (2015) Strategies for comparing and combining different genetic and genomic evaluations: a review. Livestock Science 181, 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanRaden, PM (2008) Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4414–4423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanRaden, P and Wiggans, G (1991) Derivation, calculation, and use of national animal model information. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 2737–2746.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanRaden, P, Van Tassell, C, Wiggans, G, Sonstegard, T, Schnabel, R, Taylor, J and Schenkel, F (2009) Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 16–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitezica, Z-G, Aguilar, I, Misztal, I and Legarra, A (2011) Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection. Genetics Research 93, 357–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed