Comparison of genomic predictions using medium-density (∼54,000) and high-density (∼777,000) single nucleotide polymorphism marker panels in Nordic Holstein and Red Dairy Cattle populations.

This study investigated genomic prediction using medium-density (∼54,000; 54K) and high-density marker panels (∼777,000; 777K), based on data from Nordic Holstein and Red Dairy Cattle (RDC). The Holstein data comprised 4,539 progeny-tested bulls, and the RDC data 4,403 progeny-tested bulls. The data were divided into reference data and test data using October 1, 2001, as a cut-off date (birth date of the bulls). This resulted in about 25% genotyped bulls in the Holstein test data and 20% in the RDC test data. For each breed, 3 data sets of markers were used to predict breeding values: (1) 54K data set with missing genotypes, (2) 54K data set where missing genotypes were imputed, and (3) imputed high-density (HD) marker data set created by imputing the 54K data to the HD data based on 557 bulls genotyped using a 777K single nucleotide polymorphism chip in Holstein, and 706 bulls in RDC. Based on the 3 marker data sets, direct genomic breeding values (DGV) for protein, fertility, and udder health were predicted using a genomic BLUP model (GBLUP) and a Bayesian mixture model with 2 normal distributions. Reliability of DGV was measured as squared correlations between deregressed proofs (DRP) and DGV corrected for reliability of DRP. Unbiasedness was assessed by regression of DRP on DGV, based on the bulls in the test data sets. Averaged over the 3 traits, reliability of DGV based on the HD markers was 0.5% higher than that based on the 54K data in Holstein, and 1.0% higher than that in RDC. In addition, the HD markers led to an improvement of unbiasedness of DGV. The Bayesian mixture model led to 0.5% higher reliability than the GBLUP model in Holstein, but not in RDC. Imputing missing genotypes in the 54K marker data did not improve genomic predictions for most of the traits.

Su G ，Brøndum RF ，Ma P ，Guldbrandtsen B ，Aamand GP ，Lund MS ... -  《-》

Model comparison on genomic predictions using high-density markers for different groups of bulls in the Nordic Holstein population.

This study compared genomic predictions based on imputed high-density markers (~777,000) in the Nordic Holstein population using a genomic BLUP (GBLUP) model, 4 Bayesian exponential power models with different shape parameters (0.3, 0.5, 0.8, and 1.0) for the exponential power distribution, and a Bayesian mixture model (a mixture of 4 normal distributions). Direct genomic values (DGV) were estimated for milk yield, fat yield, protein yield, fertility, and mastitis, using deregressed proofs (DRP) as response variable. The validation animals were split into 4 groups according to their genetic relationship with the training population. Groupsmgs had both the sire and the maternal grandsire (MGS), Groupsire only had the sire, Groupmgs only had the MGS, and Groupnon had neither the sire nor the MGS in the training population. Reliability of DGV was measured as the squared correlation between DGV and DRP divided by the reliability of DRP for the bulls in validation data set. Unbiasedness of DGV was measured as the regression of DRP on DGV. The results indicated that DGV were more accurate and less biased for animals that were more related to the training population. In general, the Bayesian mixture model and the exponential power model with shape parameter of 0.30 led to higher reliability of DGV than did the other models. The differences between reliabilities of DGV from the Bayesian models and the GBLUP model were statistically significant for some traits. We observed a tendency that the superiority of the Bayesian models over the GBLUP model was more profound for the groups having weaker relationships with training population. Averaged over the 5 traits, the Bayesian mixture model improved the reliability of DGV by 2.0 percentage points for Groupsmgs, 2.7 percentage points for Groupsire, 3.3 percentage points for Groupmgs, and 4.3 percentage points for Groupnon compared with GBLUP. The results showed that a Bayesian model with intense shrinkage of the explanatory variable, such as the Bayesian mixture model and the Bayesian exponential power model with shape parameter of 0.30, can improve genomic predictions using high-density markers.

Gao H ，Su G ，Janss L ，Zhang Y ，Lund MS ... -  《-》

Effect of imputing markers from a low-density chip on the reliability of genomic breeding values in Holstein populations.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the imputation error and loss of reliability of direct genomic values (DGV) or genomically enhanced breeding values (GEBV) when using genotypes imputed from a 3,000-marker single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel to a 50,000-marker SNP panel. Data consisted of genotypes of 15,966 European Holstein bulls from the combined EuroGenomics reference population. Genotypes with the low-density chip were created by erasing markers from 50,000-marker data. The studies were performed in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, and Sweden) using a BLUP model for prediction of DGV and in France using a genomic marker-assisted selection approach for prediction of GEBV. Imputation in both studies was done using a combination of the DAGPHASE 1.1 and Beagle 2.1.3 software. Traits considered were protein yield, fertility, somatic cell count, and udder depth. Imputation of missing markers and prediction of breeding values were performed using 2 different reference populations in each country: either a national reference population or a combined EuroGenomics reference population. Validation for accuracy of imputation and genomic prediction was done based on national test data. Mean imputation error rates when using national reference animals was 5.5 and 3.9% in the Nordic countries and France, respectively, whereas imputation based on the EuroGenomics reference data set gave mean error rates of 4.0 and 2.1%, respectively. Prediction of GEBV based on genotypes imputed with a national reference data set gave an absolute loss of 0.05 in mean reliability of GEBV in the French study, whereas a loss of 0.03 was obtained for reliability of DGV in the Nordic study. When genotypes were imputed using the EuroGenomics reference, a loss of 0.02 in mean reliability of GEBV was detected in the French study, and a loss of 0.06 was observed for the mean reliability of DGV in the Nordic study. Consequently, the reliability of DGV using the imputed SNP data was 0.38 based on national reference data, and 0.48 based on EuroGenomics reference data in the Nordic validation, and the reliability of GEBV using the imputed SNP data was 0.41 based on national reference data, and 0.44 based on EuroGenomics reference data in the French validation.

Dassonneville R ，Brøndum RF ，Druet T ，Fritz S ，Guillaume F ，Guldbrandtsen B ，Lund MS ，Ducrocq V ，Su G ... -  《-》

Genomic prediction for Nordic Red Cattle using one-step and selection index blending.

This study investigated the accuracy of direct genomic breeding values (DGV) using a genomic BLUP model, genomic enhanced breeding values (GEBV) using a one-step blending approach, and GEBV using a selection index blending approach for 15 traits of Nordic Red Cattle. The data comprised 6,631 bulls of which 4,408 bulls were genotyped using Illumina Bovine SNP50 BeadChip (Illumina, San Diego, CA). To validate reliability of genomic predictions, about 20% of the youngest genotyped bulls were taken as test data set. Deregressed proofs (DRP) were used as response variables for genomic predictions. Reliabilities of genomic predictions in the validation analyses were measured as squared correlations between DRP and genomic predictions corrected for reliability of DRP, based on the bulls in the test data sets. A set of weighting (scaling) factors was used to construct the combined relationship matrix among genotyped and nongenotyped bulls for one-step blending, and to scale DGV and its expected reliability in the selection index blending. Weighting (scaling) factors had a small influence on reliabilities of GEBV, but a large influence on the variation of GEBV. Based on the validation analyses, averaged over the 15 traits, the reliability of DGV for bulls without daughter records was 11.0 percentage points higher than the reliability of conventional pedigree index. Further gain of 0.9 percentage points was achieved by combining information from conventional pedigree index using the selection index blending, and gain of 1.3 percentage points was achieved by combining information of genotyped and nongenotyped bulls simultaneously applying the one-step blending. These results indicate that genomic selection can greatly improve the accuracy of preselection for young bulls in Nordic Red population, and the one-step blending approach is a good alternative to predict GEBV in practical genetic evaluation program.

Su G ，Madsen P ，Nielsen US ，Mäntysaari EA ，Aamand GP ，Christensen OF ，Lund MS ... -  《-》

Including overseas performance information in genomic evaluations of Australian dairy cattle.

In dairy cattle, the rate of genetic gain from genomic selection depends on reliability of direct genomic values (DGV). One option to increase reliabilities could be to increase the size of the reference set used for prediction, by using genotyped bulls with daughter information in countries other than the evaluating country. The increase in reliabilities of DGV from using this information will depend on the extent of genotype by environment interaction between the evaluating country and countries contributing information, and whether this is correctly accounted for in the prediction method. As the genotype by environment interaction between Australia and Europe or North America is greater than between Europe and North America for most dairy traits, ways of including information from other countries in Australian genomic evaluations were examined. Thus, alternative approaches for including information from other countries and their effect on the reliability and bias of DGV of selection candidates were assessed. We also investigated the effect of including overseas (OS) information on reliabilities of DGV for selection candidates that had weaker relationships to the current Australian reference set. The DGV were predicted either using daughter trait deviations (DTD) for the bulls with daughters in Australia, or using this information as well as OS information by including deregressed proofs (DRP) from Interbull for bulls with only OS daughters in either single trait or bivariate models. In the bivariate models, DTD and DRP were considered as different traits. Analyses were performed for Holstein and Jersey bulls for milk yield traits, fertility, cell count, survival, and some type traits. For Holsteins, the data used included up to 3,580 bulls with DTD and up to 5,720 bulls with only DRP. For Jersey, about 900 bulls with DTD and 1,820 bulls with DRP were used. Bulls born after 2003 and genotyped cows that were not dams of genotyped bulls were used for validation. The results showed that the combined use of DRP on bulls with OS daughters only and DTD for Australian bulls in either the single trait or bivariate model increased the coefficient of determination [(R(2)) (DGV,DTD)] in the validation set, averaged across 6 main traits, by 3% in Holstein and by 5% in Jersey validation bulls relative to the use of DTD only. Gains in reliability and unbiasedness of DGV were similar for the single trait and bivariate models for production traits, whereas the bivariate model performed slightly better for somatic cell count in Holstein. The increase in R(2) (DGV,DTD) as a result of using bulls with OS daughters was relatively higher for those bulls and cows in the validation sets that were less related to the current reference set. For example, in Holstein, the average increase in R(2) for milk yield traits when DTD and DRP were used in a single trait model was 23% in the least-related cow group, but only 3% in the most-related cow group. In general, for both breeds the use of DTD from domestic sources and DRP from Interbull in a single trait or bivariate model can increase reliability of DGV for selection candidates.

Haile-Mariam M ，Pryce JE ，Schrooten C ，Hayes BJ ... -  《-》