Loading…

Genomic predictions with a multi-breed genomic relationship matrix

Multi-breed evaluations have the advantage of increasing the size of the reference population for genomic evaluations and are quite simple; however, combining breeds usually have a negative impact on prediction accuracy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a multi-breed genomic relation...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of animal science 2019-12, Vol.97, p.49-50
Main Authors: Steyn, Yvette, Lourenco, Daniela, Misztal, Ignacy
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 50
container_issue
container_start_page 49
container_title Journal of animal science
container_volume 97
creator Steyn, Yvette
Lourenco, Daniela
Misztal, Ignacy
description Multi-breed evaluations have the advantage of increasing the size of the reference population for genomic evaluations and are quite simple; however, combining breeds usually have a negative impact on prediction accuracy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a multi-breed genomic relationship matrix (G), where SNP for each breed are non-shared. The multi-breed G is set assuming known genotypes for one breed and missing genotypes for the remaining breeds. This setup may avoid spurious IBS relationships between breeds and considers breed-specific allele frequencies. This scenario was contrasted to multi-breed evaluations where all SNP are shared, i.e., the same SNP, and to single-breed evaluations. Different SNP densities, namely 9k and 45k, and different effective population sizes (Ne) were tested. Five breeds mimicking recent beef cattle populations that diverged from the same historical population were simulated using different selection criteria. It was assumed that QTL effects were the same over all breeds. For the recent population, generations 1 to 9 had approximately half of the animals genotyped, whereas all 1200 animals were genotyped in generation 10. Genotyped animals in generation 10 were set as validation; therefore, each breed had a validation set. Analysis were performed using single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP). Prediction accuracy was calculated as correlation between true (T) and genomic estimated (GE) BV. Accuracies of GEBV were lower for the larger Ne and low SNP density. All three scenarios using 45K resulted in similar accuracies, suggesting that the marker density is high enough to account for relationships and linkage disequilibrium with QTL. A shared multi-breed evaluation using 9K resulted in a decrease of accuracy of 0.08 for a smaller Ne and 0.11 for a larger Ne. This loss was mostly avoided when markers were treated as non-shared within the same genomic relationship matrix.
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2348373448</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2348373448</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_23483734483</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNyksOgjAUheHGaCI-9tDEcZM-qOJU42MBzkmFq1xSKLYlunyJYQFOzj8434QkQkvNlNiqKUk4l4JlmZBzsgih5lxIvdcJOVygdQ0WtPNQYhHRtYG-MVbU0Ka3EdndA5T0OTIP1vxQhR1tTPT4WZHZw9gA67FLsjmfbscr67x79RBiXrvet8OVS5VmaqfSYf9TX-XwO58</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2348373448</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Genomic predictions with a multi-breed genomic relationship matrix</title><source>Oxford Journals Online</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Steyn, Yvette ; Lourenco, Daniela ; Misztal, Ignacy</creator><creatorcontrib>Steyn, Yvette ; Lourenco, Daniela ; Misztal, Ignacy</creatorcontrib><description>Multi-breed evaluations have the advantage of increasing the size of the reference population for genomic evaluations and are quite simple; however, combining breeds usually have a negative impact on prediction accuracy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a multi-breed genomic relationship matrix (G), where SNP for each breed are non-shared. The multi-breed G is set assuming known genotypes for one breed and missing genotypes for the remaining breeds. This setup may avoid spurious IBS relationships between breeds and considers breed-specific allele frequencies. This scenario was contrasted to multi-breed evaluations where all SNP are shared, i.e., the same SNP, and to single-breed evaluations. Different SNP densities, namely 9k and 45k, and different effective population sizes (Ne) were tested. Five breeds mimicking recent beef cattle populations that diverged from the same historical population were simulated using different selection criteria. It was assumed that QTL effects were the same over all breeds. For the recent population, generations 1 to 9 had approximately half of the animals genotyped, whereas all 1200 animals were genotyped in generation 10. Genotyped animals in generation 10 were set as validation; therefore, each breed had a validation set. Analysis were performed using single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP). Prediction accuracy was calculated as correlation between true (T) and genomic estimated (GE) BV. Accuracies of GEBV were lower for the larger Ne and low SNP density. All three scenarios using 45K resulted in similar accuracies, suggesting that the marker density is high enough to account for relationships and linkage disequilibrium with QTL. A shared multi-breed evaluation using 9K resulted in a decrease of accuracy of 0.08 for a smaller Ne and 0.11 for a larger Ne. This loss was mostly avoided when markers were treated as non-shared within the same genomic relationship matrix.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0021-8812</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1525-3163</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Champaign: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Animal populations ; Animals ; Beef cattle ; Breeding of animals ; Density ; Gene frequency ; Genomics ; Genotypes ; Linkage disequilibrium ; Markers ; Mimicry ; Quantitative trait loci ; Single-nucleotide polymorphism ; Zoology</subject><ispartof>Journal of animal science, 2019-12, Vol.97, p.49-50</ispartof><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press Dec 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Steyn, Yvette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lourenco, Daniela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Misztal, Ignacy</creatorcontrib><title>Genomic predictions with a multi-breed genomic relationship matrix</title><title>Journal of animal science</title><description>Multi-breed evaluations have the advantage of increasing the size of the reference population for genomic evaluations and are quite simple; however, combining breeds usually have a negative impact on prediction accuracy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a multi-breed genomic relationship matrix (G), where SNP for each breed are non-shared. The multi-breed G is set assuming known genotypes for one breed and missing genotypes for the remaining breeds. This setup may avoid spurious IBS relationships between breeds and considers breed-specific allele frequencies. This scenario was contrasted to multi-breed evaluations where all SNP are shared, i.e., the same SNP, and to single-breed evaluations. Different SNP densities, namely 9k and 45k, and different effective population sizes (Ne) were tested. Five breeds mimicking recent beef cattle populations that diverged from the same historical population were simulated using different selection criteria. It was assumed that QTL effects were the same over all breeds. For the recent population, generations 1 to 9 had approximately half of the animals genotyped, whereas all 1200 animals were genotyped in generation 10. Genotyped animals in generation 10 were set as validation; therefore, each breed had a validation set. Analysis were performed using single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP). Prediction accuracy was calculated as correlation between true (T) and genomic estimated (GE) BV. Accuracies of GEBV were lower for the larger Ne and low SNP density. All three scenarios using 45K resulted in similar accuracies, suggesting that the marker density is high enough to account for relationships and linkage disequilibrium with QTL. A shared multi-breed evaluation using 9K resulted in a decrease of accuracy of 0.08 for a smaller Ne and 0.11 for a larger Ne. This loss was mostly avoided when markers were treated as non-shared within the same genomic relationship matrix.</description><subject>Animal populations</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Beef cattle</subject><subject>Breeding of animals</subject><subject>Density</subject><subject>Gene frequency</subject><subject>Genomics</subject><subject>Genotypes</subject><subject>Linkage disequilibrium</subject><subject>Markers</subject><subject>Mimicry</subject><subject>Quantitative trait loci</subject><subject>Single-nucleotide polymorphism</subject><subject>Zoology</subject><issn>0021-8812</issn><issn>1525-3163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNyksOgjAUheHGaCI-9tDEcZM-qOJU42MBzkmFq1xSKLYlunyJYQFOzj8434QkQkvNlNiqKUk4l4JlmZBzsgih5lxIvdcJOVygdQ0WtPNQYhHRtYG-MVbU0Ka3EdndA5T0OTIP1vxQhR1tTPT4WZHZw9gA67FLsjmfbscr67x79RBiXrvet8OVS5VmaqfSYf9TX-XwO58</recordid><startdate>20191201</startdate><enddate>20191201</enddate><creator>Steyn, Yvette</creator><creator>Lourenco, Daniela</creator><creator>Misztal, Ignacy</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20191201</creationdate><title>Genomic predictions with a multi-breed genomic relationship matrix</title><author>Steyn, Yvette ; Lourenco, Daniela ; Misztal, Ignacy</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_23483734483</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Animal populations</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Beef cattle</topic><topic>Breeding of animals</topic><topic>Density</topic><topic>Gene frequency</topic><topic>Genomics</topic><topic>Genotypes</topic><topic>Linkage disequilibrium</topic><topic>Markers</topic><topic>Mimicry</topic><topic>Quantitative trait loci</topic><topic>Single-nucleotide polymorphism</topic><topic>Zoology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Steyn, Yvette</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lourenco, Daniela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Misztal, Ignacy</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Databases</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>ProQuest Science Journals</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Steyn, Yvette</au><au>Lourenco, Daniela</au><au>Misztal, Ignacy</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Genomic predictions with a multi-breed genomic relationship matrix</atitle><jtitle>Journal of animal science</jtitle><date>2019-12-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>97</volume><spage>49</spage><epage>50</epage><pages>49-50</pages><issn>0021-8812</issn><eissn>1525-3163</eissn><abstract>Multi-breed evaluations have the advantage of increasing the size of the reference population for genomic evaluations and are quite simple; however, combining breeds usually have a negative impact on prediction accuracy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a multi-breed genomic relationship matrix (G), where SNP for each breed are non-shared. The multi-breed G is set assuming known genotypes for one breed and missing genotypes for the remaining breeds. This setup may avoid spurious IBS relationships between breeds and considers breed-specific allele frequencies. This scenario was contrasted to multi-breed evaluations where all SNP are shared, i.e., the same SNP, and to single-breed evaluations. Different SNP densities, namely 9k and 45k, and different effective population sizes (Ne) were tested. Five breeds mimicking recent beef cattle populations that diverged from the same historical population were simulated using different selection criteria. It was assumed that QTL effects were the same over all breeds. For the recent population, generations 1 to 9 had approximately half of the animals genotyped, whereas all 1200 animals were genotyped in generation 10. Genotyped animals in generation 10 were set as validation; therefore, each breed had a validation set. Analysis were performed using single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP). Prediction accuracy was calculated as correlation between true (T) and genomic estimated (GE) BV. Accuracies of GEBV were lower for the larger Ne and low SNP density. All three scenarios using 45K resulted in similar accuracies, suggesting that the marker density is high enough to account for relationships and linkage disequilibrium with QTL. A shared multi-breed evaluation using 9K resulted in a decrease of accuracy of 0.08 for a smaller Ne and 0.11 for a larger Ne. This loss was mostly avoided when markers were treated as non-shared within the same genomic relationship matrix.</abstract><cop>Champaign</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0021-8812
ispartof Journal of animal science, 2019-12, Vol.97, p.49-50
issn 0021-8812
1525-3163
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2348373448
source Oxford Journals Online; PubMed Central
subjects Animal populations
Animals
Beef cattle
Breeding of animals
Density
Gene frequency
Genomics
Genotypes
Linkage disequilibrium
Markers
Mimicry
Quantitative trait loci
Single-nucleotide polymorphism
Zoology
title Genomic predictions with a multi-breed genomic relationship matrix
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T18%3A47%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Genomic%20predictions%20with%20a%20multi-breed%20genomic%20relationship%20matrix&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20animal%20science&rft.au=Steyn,%20Yvette&rft.date=2019-12-01&rft.volume=97&rft.spage=49&rft.epage=50&rft.pages=49-50&rft.issn=0021-8812&rft.eissn=1525-3163&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2348373448%3C/proquest%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_23483734483%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2348373448&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true