Abstract

BackgroundGenomic selection uses dense single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) markers to predict breeding values, as compared to conventional evaluations which estimate polygenic effects based on phenotypic records and pedigree information. The objective of this study was to compare polygenic, genomic and combined polygenic-genomic models, including mixture models (labelled according to the percentage of genotyped SNP markers considered to have a substantial effect, ranging from 2.5% to 100%). The data consisted of phenotypes and SNP genotypes (10,946 SNPs) of 2,188 mice. Various growth, behavioural and physiological traits were selected for the analysis to reflect a wide range of heritabilities (0.10 to 0.74) and numbers of detected quantitative traits loci (QTL) (1 to 20) affecting those traits. The analysis included estimation of variance components and cross-validation within and between families.ResultsGenomic selection showed a high predictive ability (PA) in comparison to traditional polygenic selection, especially for traits of moderate heritability and when cross-validation was between families. This occurred although the proportion of genomic variance of traits using genomic models was 22 to 33% smaller than using polygenic models. Using a 2.5% mixture genomic model, the proportion of genomic variance was 79% smaller relative to the polygenic model. Although the proportion of variance explained by the markers was reduced further when a smaller number of SNPs was assumed to have a substantial effect on the trait, PA of genomic selection for most traits was little affected. These low mixture percentages resulted in improved estimates of single SNP effects. Genomic models implemented for traits with fewer QTLs showed even lower PA than the polygenic models.ConclusionsGenomic selection generally performed better than traditional polygenic selection, especially in the context of between family cross-validation. Reducing the number of markers considered to affect the trait did not significantly change PA for most traits, particularly in the case of within family cross-validation, but increased the number of markers found to be associated with QTLs. The underlying number of QTLs affecting the trait has an effect on PA, with a smaller number of QTLs resulting in lower PA using the genomic model compared to the polygenic model.

Highlights

  • Genomic selection uses dense single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) markers to predict breeding values, as compared to conventional evaluations which estimate polygenic effects based on phenotypic records and pedigree information

  • The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of genomic selection using mouse data and how it is affected by a) the heritability of the trait, b) the number of quantitative traits loci (QTL) affecting the trait, c) the type of trait (‘classical’ traits that are measurable versus behavioural traits) and d) the number of SNP markers in the model allowed to have a substantial effect

  • Analyses of weight traits based on model (1), using polygenic effects only, showed slightly lower heritabilities (Table 1) compared to those reported by Valdar et al [11]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Genomic selection uses dense single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) markers to predict breeding values, as compared to conventional evaluations which estimate polygenic effects based on phenotypic records and pedigree information. High-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays for a broad range of species have been developed, including humans, mice, plant species such as barley, wheat or maize as well as major livestock species, such as cattle, pigs, sheep and chickens. Statistical limitations can arise when the number of SNP effects exceeds by far the amount of phenotypic data available. For these reasons, there could be interest in reducing the number of SNPs while maintaining efficiency of selection. To circumvent the statistical limitations, many different approaches have been developed to reduce the number of SNP effects to be estimated, e.g. [9,10]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.