Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Updating the reference population to achieve constant genomic prediction reliability across generations

  • M. Pszczola (a1) and M. P. L. Calus (a2)

Abstract

The reliability of genomic breeding values (DGV) decays over generations. To keep the DGV reliability at a constant level, the reference population (RP) has to be continuously updated with animals from new generations. Updating RP may be challenging due to economic reasons, especially for novel traits involving expensive phenotyping. Therefore, the goal of this study was to investigate a minimal RP update size to keep the reliability at a constant level across generations. We used a simulated dataset resembling a dairy cattle population. The trait of interest was not included itself in the selection index, but it was affected by selection pressure by being correlated with an index trait that represented the overall breeding goal. The heritability of the index trait was assumed to be 0.25 and for the novel trait the heritability equalled 0.2. The genetic correlation between the two traits was 0.25. The initial RP (n=2000) was composed of cows only with a single observation per animal. Reliability of DGV using the initial RP was computed by evaluating contemporary animals. Thereafter, the RP was used to evaluate animals which were one generation younger from the reference individuals. The drop in the reliability when evaluating younger animals was then assessed and the RP was updated to re-gain the initial reliability. The update animals were contemporaries of evaluated animals (EVA). The RP was updated in batches of 100 animals/update. First, the animals most closely related to the EVA were chosen to update RP. The results showed that, approximately, 600 animals were needed every generation to maintain the DGV reliability at a constant level across generations. The sum of squared relationships between RP and EVA and the sum of off-diagonal coefficients of the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix for RP, separately explained 31% and 34%, respectively, of the variation in the reliability across generations. Combined, these parameters explained 53% of the variation in the reliability across generations. Thus, for an optimal RP update an algorithm considering both relationships between reference and evaluated animals, as well as relationships among reference animals, is required.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Updating the reference population to achieve constant genomic prediction reliability across generations
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Updating the reference population to achieve constant genomic prediction reliability across generations
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Updating the reference population to achieve constant genomic prediction reliability across generations
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

E-mail: mbee@up.poznan.pl

References

Hide All
Bell, MJ, Wall, E, Russell, G, Morgan, C and Simm, G 2010. Effect of breeding for milk yield, diet and management on enteric methane emissions from dairy cows. Animal Production Science 50, 817826.
Bouquet, A and Juga, J 2013. Integrating genomic selection into dairy cattle breeding programmes: a review. Animal 7, 705713.
Calus, MPL 2010. Genomic breeding value prediction: methods and procedures. Animal 4, 157164.
Clark, S, Hickey, J, Daetwyler, H and van der Werf, J 2012. The importance of information on relatives for the prediction of genomic breeding values and the implications for the makeup of reference data sets in livestock breeding schemes. Genetics Selection Evolution 44, 4.
Gilmour, AR, Gogel, BJ, Cullis, BR and Thompson, R 2009. ASReml user guide release 3.0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK.
Goddard, ME and Hayes, BJ 2009. Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes. Nature Review Genetics 10, 381391.
Goddard, ME, Hayes, BJ and Meuwissen, THE 2011. Using the genomic relationship matrix to predict the accuracy of genomic selection. Journal of animal breeding and genetics 128, 409421.
Habier, D, Fernando, RL and Dekkers, JCM 2007. The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics 177, 23892397.
Habier, D, Tetens, J, Seefried, F-R, Lichtner, P and Thaller, G 2010. The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 42, 517.
Hayes, B, Bowman, P, Chamberlain, A and Goddard, M 2009. Invited review: genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 433443.
Isidro, J, Jannink, J-L, Akdemir, D, Poland, J, Heslot, N and Sorrells, M 2015. Training set optimization under population structure in genomic selection. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 128, 145158.
Meuwissen, T, Hayes, B and Goddard, M 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 18191829.
Pryce, JE and Daetwyler, HD 2012. Designing dairy cattle breeding schemes under genomic selection: a review of international research. Animal Production Science 52, 107114.
Pszczola, M, Strabel, T, Mulder, HA and Calus, MPL 2012a. Reliability of genomic selection for animals with different relationships within and to the reference population. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 389400.
Pszczola, M, Strabel, T, van Arendonk, JAM and Calus, MPL 2012b. The impact of genotyping different groups of animals on accuracy when moving from traditional to genomic selection. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 54125421.
Rincent, R, Laloë, D, Nicolas, S, Altmann, T, Brunel, D, Revilla, P, RodrĂguez, VM, Moreno-Gonzalez, J, Melchinger, A, Bauer, E, Schoen, C-C, Meyer, N, Giauffret, C, Bauland, C, Jamin, P, Laborde, J, Monod, H, Flament, P, Charcosset, A and Moreau, L 2012. Maximizing the reliability of genomic selection by optimizing the calibration set of reference individuals: comparison of methods in two diverse groups of maize inbreds (Zea mays L.). Genetics 192, 715728.
Sargolzaei, M and Schenkel, FS 2009. QMSim: a large-scale genome simulator for livestock. Bioinformatics 25, 680681.
Schenkel, F, Sargolzaei, M, Kistemaker, G, Jansen, G, Sullivan, P, Van Doormaal, B, VanRaden, P and Wiggans, G 2009. Reliability of genomic evaluation of Holstein cattle in Canada. Interbull Bulletin 39, 5158.
Sellner, EM, Kim, JW, McClure, MC, Taylor, KH, Schnabel, RD and Taylor, JF 2007. Board-invited review: applications of genomic information in livestock. Journal of Animal Science 85, 31483158.
Snelling, W, Chiu, R, Schein, J, Hobbs, M, Abbey, C, Adelson, D, Aerts, J, Bennett, G, Bosdet, I, Boussaha, M, Brauning, R, Caetano, A, Costa, M, Crawford, A, Dalrymple, B, Eggen, A, Everts-van der Wind, A, Floriot, S, Gautier, M, Gill, C, Green, R, Holt, R, Jann, O, Jones, S, Kappes, S, Keele, J, de Jong, P, Larkin, D, Lewin, H and McEwan, J 2007. A physical map of the bovine genome. Genome Biology 8, R165.
Sonesson, A and Meuwissen, T 2009. Testing strategies for genomic selection in aquaculture breeding programs. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 37.
VanRaden, PM 2008. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 44144423.
Veerkamp, RF 1998. Selection for economic efficiency of dairy cattle using information on live weight and feed intake: a review. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 11091119.
Wall, E, Simm, G and Moran, D 2010. Developing breeding schemes to assist mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Animal 4, 366376.
Wolc, A, Arango, J, Settar, P, Fulton, JE, O’Sullivan, NP, Preisinger, R, Habier, D, Fernando, R, Garrick, DJ and Dekkers, JCM 2011. Persistence of accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values over generations in layer chickens. Genetics Selection Evolution 43, 23.
Wu, X, Lund, MS, Sun, D, Zhang, Q and Su, G 2015. Impact of relationships between test and training animals and among training animals on reliability of genomic prediction. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 132, 366375.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Updating the reference population to achieve constant genomic prediction reliability across generations

  • M. Pszczola (a1) and M. P. L. Calus (a2)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.