Abstract

Over half a million Holsteins are being genotyped annually in the United States. The computational cost of including all genotypes in single-step genomic (ssG)BLUP is high, although it is feasible to conduct large-scale genomic prediction using an efficient algorithm such as APY (algorithm for proven and young). An effective method to further reduce the computing cost could be the use of indirect genomic predictions (IGP) for genotyped animals when they have neither progeny nor phenotypes. These young genotyped animals have no effect on the other genotyped animals and could have their genomic prediction done indirectly. The main objective of this study was to calculate IGP for various groups of genotyped animals and investigate the reduction in computing time as well as bias and accuracy of the IGP. We compared IGP with genomic (G)EBV for 18 linear type traits in US Holsteins, including 2.3 million (M) genotyped animals. The full data set consisted of 10.9M records for 18 linear type traits up to 2018 calving, 13.6M animals in the pedigree, and 2.3M animals genotyped for 79K SNP. For IGP, ssGBLUP included all genotyped animals except those with neither progeny nor phenotypes by year from 2014 to 2018 (i.e., the target animals). The SNP marker effects were computed based on GEBV for genotyped animals that had progeny, or phenotypes, or both. Further, IGP were calculated for target genotyped animals in each year group. For all genotyped animal groups from 2014 to 2018, the coefficients of determination (R2) of a linear regression of GEBV on IGP were 0.960 for males and 0.954 for females for 18 traits on average. To reduce computing costs, the SNP marker effects were calculated based on GEBV from randomly selected genotyped animals from 15K to 60K. By randomly selecting a small number of genotyped animals, the computing time was dramatically reduced. As more genotyped animals were randomly selected to calculate SNP effects, R2 was higher (more accurate) and the regression coefficient was lower (more inflated IGP). In a practical genomic evaluation in US Holsteins, to get sufficient contributions from GEBV, 25K to 35K is a rational number of genotyped animals that can be randomly selected to compute SNP effects and obtain accurate and unbiased IGP. Considering the computing time and both unbiasedness and accuracy of IGP, genomic evaluation can be conducted separately in GEBV for genotyped animals with phenotypes or progeny and in IGP for young genotyped animals. This can be a practical solution when conducting a large-scale genomic evaluation and would enable more frequent evaluation at lower cost, especially when many genotyped animals have neither phenotypes nor progeny.

Highlights

  • In a practical genomic evaluation in US Holsteins, to get sufficient contributions from GEBV, 25K to 35K is a rational number of genotyped animals that can be randomly selected to compute SNP effects and obtain accurate and unbiased indirect genomic predictions (IGP)

  • The IGP, which is the genomic prediction for genotyped animals indirectly calculated from SNP marker effects based on GEBV for other genotyped animals, could be a practical choice to reduce the computational cost in genomic evaluations

  • The objective of this study was to investigate a practical approach to calculating IGP to reduce the computational cost without deteriorating accuracy and bias in genomic predictions for a large number of genotyped animals in US Holsteins using 18 linear type traits

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The SNP marker effects were calculated based on GEBV from randomly selected genotyped animals from 15K to 60K. In a practical genomic evaluation in US Holsteins, to get sufficient contributions from GEBV, 25K to 35K is a rational number of genotyped animals that can be randomly selected to compute SNP effects and obtain accurate and unbiased IGP.

Objectives
Results
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.