Multiple-trait QTL mapping and genomic prediction for wool traits in sheep.

The application of genomic selection to sheep breeding could lead to substantial increases in profitability of wool production due to the availability of accurate breeding values from single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data. Several key traits determine the value of wool and influence a sheep's susceptibility to fleece rot and fly strike. Our aim was to predict genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) and to compare three methods of combining information across traits to map polymorphisms that affect these traits. GEBV for 5726 Merino and Merino crossbred sheep were calculated using BayesR and genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) with real and imputed 510,174 SNPs for 22 traits (at yearling and adult ages) including wool production and quality, and breech conformation traits that are associated with susceptibility to fly strike. Accuracies of these GEBV were assessed using fivefold cross-validation. We also devised and compared three approximate multi-trait analyses to map pleiotropic quantitative trait loci (QTL): a multi-trait genome-wide association study and two multi-trait methods that use the output from BayesR analyses. One BayesR method used local GEBV for each trait, while the other used the posterior probabilities that a SNP had an effect on each trait. BayesR and GBLUP resulted in similar average GEBV accuracies across traits (~0.22). BayesR accuracies were highest for wool yield and fibre diameter (>0.40) and lowest for skin quality and dag score (<0.10). Generally, accuracy was higher for traits with larger reference populations and higher heritability. In total, the three multi-trait analyses identified 206 putative QTL, of which 20 were common to the three analyses. The two BayesR multi-trait approaches mapped QTL in a more defined manner than the multi-trait GWAS. We identified genes with known effects on hair growth (i.e. FGF5, STAT3, KRT86, and ALX4) near SNPs with pleiotropic effects on wool traits. The mean accuracy of genomic prediction across wool traits was around 0.22. The three multi-trait analyses identified 206 putative QTL across the ovine genome. Detailed phenotypic information helped to identify likely candidate genes.

Bolormaa S ，Swan AA ，Brown DJ ，Hatcher S ，Moghaddar N ，van der Werf JH ，Goddard ME ，Daetwyler HD ... -  《-》

Genomic prediction of reproduction traits for Merino sheep.

Economically important reproduction traits in sheep, such as number of lambs weaned and litter size, are expressed only in females and later in life after most selection decisions are made, which makes them ideal candidates for genomic selection. Accurate genomic predictions would lead to greater genetic gain for these traits by enabling accurate selection of young rams with high genetic merit. The aim of this study was to design and evaluate the accuracy of a genomic prediction method for female reproduction in sheep using daughter trait deviations (DTD) for sires and ewe phenotypes (when individual ewes were genotyped) for three reproduction traits: number of lambs born (NLB), litter size (LSIZE) and number of lambs weaned. Genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), BayesR and pedigree BLUP analyses of the three reproduction traits measured on 5340 sheep (4503 ewes and 837 sires) with real and imputed genotypes for 510 174 SNPs were performed. The prediction of breeding values using both sire and ewe trait records was validated in Merino sheep. Prediction accuracy was evaluated by across sire family and random cross-validations. Accuracies of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) were assessed as the mean Pearson correlation adjusted by the accuracy of the input phenotypes. The addition of sire DTD into the prediction analysis resulted in higher accuracies compared with using only ewe records in genomic predictions or pedigree BLUP. Using GBLUP, the average accuracy based on the combined records (ewes and sire DTD) was 0.43 across traits, but the accuracies varied by trait and type of cross-validations. The accuracies of GEBVs from random cross-validations (range 0.17-0.61) were higher than were those from sire family cross-validations (range 0.00-0.51). The GEBV accuracies of 0.41-0.54 for NLB and LSIZE based on the combined records were amongst the highest in the study. Although BayesR was not significantly different from GBLUP in prediction accuracy, it identified several candidate genes which are known to be associated with NLB and LSIZE. The approach provides a way to make use of all data available in genomic prediction for traits that have limited recording.

Bolormaa S ，Brown DJ ，Swan AA ，van der Werf JHJ ，Hayes BJ ，Daetwyler HD ... -  《-》

Accuracy of prediction of genomic breeding values for residual feed intake and carcass and meat quality traits in Bos taurus, Bos indicus, and composite beef cattle.

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of genomic predictions for 19 traits including feed efficiency, growth, and carcass and meat quality traits in beef cattle. The 10,181 cattle in our study had real or imputed genotypes for 729,068 SNP although not all cattle were measured for all traits. Animals included Bos taurus, Brahman, composite, and crossbred animals. Genomic EBV (GEBV) were calculated using 2 methods of genomic prediction [BayesR and genomic BLUP (GBLUP)] either using a common training dataset for all breeds or using a training dataset comprising only animals of the same breed. Accuracies of GEBV were assessed using 5-fold cross-validation. The accuracy of genomic prediction varied by trait and by method. Traits with a large number of recorded and genotyped animals and with high heritability gave the greatest accuracy of GEBV. Using GBLUP, the average accuracy was 0.27 across traits and breeds, but the accuracies between breeds and between traits varied widely. When the training population was restricted to animals from the same breed as the validation population, GBLUP accuracies declined by an average of 0.04. The greatest decline in accuracy was found for the 4 composite breeds. The BayesR accuracies were greater by an average of 0.03 than GBLUP accuracies, particularly for traits with known genes of moderate to large effect mutations segregating. The accuracies of 0.43 to 0.48 for IGF-I traits were among the greatest in the study. Although accuracies are low compared with those observed in dairy cattle, genomic selection would still be beneficial for traits that are hard to improve by conventional selection, such as tenderness and residual feed intake. BayesR identified many of the same quantitative trait loci as a genomewide association study but appeared to map them more precisely. All traits appear to be highly polygenic with thousands of SNP independently associated with each trait.

Bolormaa S ，Pryce JE ，Kemper K ，Savin K ，Hayes BJ ，Barendse W ，Zhang Y ，Reich CM ，Mason BA ，Bunch RJ ，Harrison BE ，Reverter A ，Herd RM ，Tier B ，Graser HU ，Goddard ME ... -  《-》

A multi-trait Bayesian method for mapping QTL and genomic prediction.

Genomic prediction and quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping typically analyze one trait at a time but this may ignore the possibility that one polymorphism affects multiple traits. The aim of this study was to develop a multivariate Bayesian approach that could be used for simultaneously elucidating genetic architecture, QTL mapping, and genomic prediction. Our approach uses information from multiple traits to divide markers into 'unassociated' (no association with any trait) and 'associated' (associated with one or more traits). The effect of associated markers is estimated independently for each trait to avoid the assumption that QTL effects follow a multi-variate normal distribution. Using simulated data, our multivariate method (BayesMV) detected a larger number of true QTL (with a posterior probability > 0.9) and increased the accuracy of genomic prediction compared to an equivalent univariate method (BayesR). With real data, accuracies of genomic prediction in validation sets for milk yield traits with high-density genotypes were approximately equal to those from equivalent single-trait methods. BayesMV tended to select a similar number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) per trait for genomic prediction compared to BayesR (i.e. those with non-zero effects), but BayesR selected different sets of SNPs for each trait, whereas BayesMV selected a common set of SNPs across traits. Despite these two dramatically different estimates of genetic architecture (i.e. different SNPs affecting each trait vs. pleiotropic SNPs), both models indicated that 3000 to 4000 SNPs are associated with a trait. The BayesMV approach may be advantageous when the aim is to develop a low-density SNP chip that works well for a number of traits. SNPs for milk yield traits identified by BayesMV and BayesR were also found to be associated with detailed milk composition. The BayesMV method simultaneously estimates the proportion of SNPs that are associated with a combination of traits. When applied to milk production traits, most of the identified SNPs were associated with all three traits (milk, fat and protein yield). BayesMV aims at exploiting pleiotropic QTL and selects a small number of SNPs that could be used to predict multiple traits.

Kemper KE ，Bowman PJ ，Hayes BJ ，Visscher PM ，Goddard ME ... -  《-》

Improving accuracy of genomic predictions within and between dairy cattle breeds with imputed high-density single nucleotide polymorphism panels.

Achieving accurate genomic estimated breeding values for dairy cattle requires a very large reference population of genotyped and phenotyped individuals. Assembling such reference populations has been achieved for breeds such as Holstein, but is challenging for breeds with fewer individuals. An alternative is to use a multi-breed reference population, such that smaller breeds gain some advantage in accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) from information from larger breeds. However, this requires that marker-quantitative trait loci associations persist across breeds. Here, we assessed the gain in accuracy of GEBV in Jersey cattle as a result of using a combined Holstein and Jersey reference population, with either 39,745 or 624,213 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. The surrogate used for accuracy was the correlation of GEBV with daughter trait deviations in a validation population. Two methods were used to predict breeding values, either a genomic BLUP (GBLUP_mod), or a new method, BayesR, which used a mixture of normal distributions as the prior for SNP effects, including one distribution that set SNP effects to zero. The GBLUP_mod method scaled both the genomic relationship matrix and the additive relationship matrix to a base at the time the breeds diverged, and regressed the genomic relationship matrix to account for sampling errors in estimating relationship coefficients due to a finite number of markers, before combining the 2 matrices. Although these modifications did result in less biased breeding values for Jerseys compared with an unmodified genomic relationship matrix, BayesR gave the highest accuracies of GEBV for the 3 traits investigated (milk yield, fat yield, and protein yield), with an average increase in accuracy compared with GBLUP_mod across the 3 traits of 0.05 for both Jerseys and Holsteins. The advantage was limited for either Jerseys or Holsteins in using 624,213 SNP rather than 39,745 SNP (0.01 for Holsteins and 0.03 for Jerseys, averaged across traits). Even this limited and nonsignificant advantage was only observed when BayesR was used. An alternative panel, which extracted the SNP in the transcribed part of the bovine genome from the 624,213 SNP panel (to give 58,532 SNP), performed better, with an increase in accuracy of 0.03 for Jerseys across traits. This panel captures much of the increased genomic content of the 624,213 SNP panel, with the advantage of a greatly reduced number of SNP effects to estimate. Taken together, using this panel, a combined breed reference and using BayesR rather than GBLUP_mod increased the accuracy of GEBV in Jerseys from 0.43 to 0.52, averaged across the 3 traits.

Erbe M ，Hayes BJ ，Matukumalli LK ，Goswami S ，Bowman PJ ，Reich CM ，Mason BA ，Goddard ME ... -  《-》