Single-step Bayesian Regression Research Articles

Genome-wide Association Study for Carcass Primal Cut Yields Using Single-step Bayesian Approach in Hanwoo Cattle

The importance of meat and carcass quality is growing in beef cattle production to meet both producer and consumer demands. Primal cut yields, which reflect the body compositions of carcass, could determine the carcass grade and, consequently, command premium prices. Despite its importance, there have been few genome-wide association studies on these traits. This study aimed to identify genomic regions and putative candidate genes related to 10 primal cut traits, including tenderloin, sirloin, striploin, chuck, brisket, top round, bottom round, shank, flank, and rib in Hanwoo cattle using a single-step Bayesian regression (ssBR) approach. After genomic data quality control, 43,987 SNPs from 3,745 genotyped animals were available, of which 3,467 had phenotypic records for the analyzed traits. A total of 16 significant genomic regions (1-Mb window) were identified, of which five large-effect quantitative trait loci (QTLs) located on chromosomes 6 at 38–39 Mb, 11 at 21–22 Mb, 14 at 6–7 Mb and 26–27 Mb, and 19 at 26–27 Mb were associated with more than one trait, while the remaining 11 QTLs were trait-specific. These significant regions were harbored by 154 genes, among which TOX, FAM184B, SPP1, IBSP, PKD2, SDCBP, PIGY, LCORL, NCAPG, and ABCG2 were noteworthy. Enrichment analysis revealed biological processes and functional terms involved in growth and lipid metabolism, such as growth (GO:0040007), muscle structure development (GO:0061061), skeletal system development (GO:0001501), animal organ development (GO:0048513), lipid metabolic process (GO:0006629), response to lipid (GO:0033993), metabolic pathways (bta01100), focal adhesion (bta04510), ECM–receptor interaction (bta04512), fat digestion and absorption (bta04975), and Rap1 signaling pathway (bta04015) being the most significant for the carcass primal cut traits. Thus, identification of quantitative trait loci regions and plausible candidate genes will aid in a better understanding of the genetic and biological mechanisms regulating carcass primal cut yields.

Technical note: Automatic scaling in single-step genomic BLUP

Single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) requires compatibility between genomic and pedigree relationships for unbiased and accurate predictions. Scaling the genomic relationship matrix (G) to have the same averages as the pedigree relationship matrix (i.e., scaling by averages) is one way to ensure compatibility. This requires computing both relationship matrices, calculating averages, and changing G, whereas only the inverses of those matrices are needed in the mixed model equations. Therefore, the compatibility process can add extra computing burden. In the single-step Bayesian regression, the scaling is done by including a mean (μg) as a fixed effect in the model. The parameter μg can be interpreted as the average of the breeding values of the genotyped animals. In this study, such scaling, called automatic, was implemented in ssGBLUP via Quaas-Pollak transformation of the inverse of the relationship matrix used in ssGBLUP (H), which combines the inverses of the pedigree and genomic relationship matrices. Comparisons involved a simulated data set, and the genomic relationship matrix was computed using different allele frequencies either from the current population (i.e., realized allele frequencies), equal among all the loci, or from the base population. For all of the scenarios, we computed bias [defined as the average difference between true breeding values (TBV) and genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV)], accuracy (defined as the correlation between TBV and GEBV), and dispersion (defined as the regression coefficient of GEBV on TBV). With no scaling, the bias expressed in terms of genetic standard deviations was 0.86, 0.64, and 0.58 with realized, equal, and base population allele frequencies, respectively. With scaling by averages, which is currently used in ssGBLUP, bias was 0.07, 0.08, and 0.03, respectively. With automatic scaling, bias was 0.18 regardless of allele frequencies. Accuracies were similar among scaling methods, but about 0.1 lower in the scenario without scaling. The GEBV were more inflated without any scaling, whereas the automatic scaling performed similarly to the scaling by averages. The average dispersion for those methods was 0.94. When μg was treated as random, with the variance equal to differences between pedigree and genomic relationships, the bias was the same as with the scaling by averages. The automatic scaling is biased, especially when μg is treated as a fixed effect. The bias may be small in real data with fewer generations, when traits are undergoing weak selection, or when the number of genotyped animals is large.

Single-Step Genomic Evaluations from Theory to Practice: Using SNP Chips and Sequence Data in BLUPF90.

Single-step genomic evaluation became a standard procedure in livestock breeding, and the main reason is the ability to combine all pedigree, phenotypes, and genotypes available into one single evaluation, without the need of post-analysis processing. Therefore, the incorporation of data on genotyped and non-genotyped animals in this method is straightforward. Since 2009, two main implementations of single-step were proposed. One is called single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) and uses single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) to construct the genomic relationship matrix; the other is the single-step Bayesian regression (ssBR), which is a marker effect model. Under the same assumptions, both models are equivalent. In this review, we focus solely on ssGBLUP. The implementation of ssGBLUP into the BLUPF90 software suite was done in 2009, and since then, several changes were made to make ssGBLUP flexible to any model, number of traits, number of phenotypes, and number of genotyped animals. Single-step GBLUP from the BLUPF90 software suite has been used for genomic evaluations worldwide. In this review, we will show theoretical developments and numerical examples of ssGBLUP using SNP data from regular chips to sequence data.

Accuracies of direct genomic breeding values for birth and weaning weights of registered Charolais cattle in Mexico

Context Genomic prediction is now routinely used in many livestock species to rank individuals based on genomic breeding values (GEBV). Aims This study reports the first assessment aimed to evaluate the accuracy of direct GEBV for birth (BW) and weaning (WW) weights of registered Charolais cattle in Mexico. Methods The population assessed included 823 animals genotyped with an array of 77000 single nucleotide polymorphisms. Genomic prediction used genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), Bayes C (BC), and single-step Bayesian regression (SSBR) methods in comparison with a pedigree-based BLUP method. Key results Our results show that the genomic prediction methods provided low and similar accuracies to BLUP. The prediction accuracy of GBLUP and BC were identical at 0.31 for BW and 0.29 for WW, similar to BLUP. Prediction accuracies of SSBR for BW and WW were up to 4% higher than those by BLUP. Conclusions Genomic prediction is feasible under current conditions, and provides a slight improvement using SSBR. Implications Some limitations on reference population size and structure were identified and need to be addressed to obtain more accurate predictions in liveweight traits under the prevalent cattle breeding conditions of Mexico.

Bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study

BackgroundAfter the extensive implementation of genomic selection (GS), the choice of the statistical model and data used to estimate variance components (VCs) remains unclear. A primary concern is that VCs estimated from a traditional pedigree-based animal model (P-AM) will be biased due to ignoring the impact of GS. The objectives of this study were to examine the effects of GS on estimates of VC in the analysis of different sets of phenotypes and to investigate VC estimation using different methods. Data were simulated to resemble the Danish Jersey population. The simulation included three phases: (1) a historical phase; (2) 20 years of conventional breeding; and (3) 15 years of GS. The three scenarios based on different sets of phenotypes for VC estimation were as follows: (1) Pheno1: phenotypes from only the conventional phase (1–20 years); (2) Pheno1 + 2: phenotypes from both the conventional phase and GS phase (1–35 years); (3) Pheno2: phenotypes from only the GS phase (21–35 years). Single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP), a single-step Bayesian regression model (ssBR), and P-AM were applied. Two base populations were defined: the first was the founder population referred to by the pedigree-based relationship (P-base); the second was the base population referred to by the current genotyped population (G-base).ResultsIn general, both the ssGBLUP and ssBR models with all the phenotypic and genotypic information (Pheno1 + 2) yielded biased estimates of additive genetic variance compared to the P-base model. When the phenotypes from the conventional breeding phase were excluded (Pheno2), P-AM led to underestimation of the genetic variance of P-base. Compared to the VCs of G-base, when phenotypes from the conventional breeding phase (Pheno2) were ignored, the ssBR model yielded unbiased estimates of the total genetic variance and marker-based genetic variance, whereas the residual variance was overestimated.ConclusionsThe results show that neither of the single-step models (ssGBLUP and ssBR) can precisely estimate the VCs for populations undergoing GS. Overall, the best solution for obtaining unbiased estimates of VCs is to use P-AM with phenotypes from the conventional phase or phenotypes from both the conventional and GS phases.

Multi-trait single-step genomic prediction accounting for heterogeneous (co)variances over the genome

Widely used genomic prediction models may not properly account for heterogeneous (co)variance structure across the genome. Models such as BayesA and BayesB assume locus-specific variance, which are highly influenced by the prior for (co)variance of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) effect, regardless of the size of data. Models such as BayesC or GBLUP assume a common (co)variance for a proportion (BayesC) or all (GBLUP) of the SNP effects. In this study, we propose a multi-trait Bayesian whole genome regression method (BayesN0), which is based on grouping a number of predefined SNPs to account for heterogeneous (co)variance structure across the genome. This model was also implemented in single-step Bayesian regression (ssBayesN0). For practical implementation, we considered multi-trait single-step SNPBLUP models, using (co)variance estimates from BayesN0 or ssBayesN0. Genotype data were simulated using haplotypes on first five chromosomes of 2200 Danish Holstein cattle, and phenotypes were simulated for two traits with heritabilities 0.1 or 0.4, assuming 200 quantitative trait loci (QTL). We compared prediction accuracy from different prediction models and different region sizes (one SNP, 100 SNPs, one chromosome or whole genome). In general, highest accuracies were obtained when 100 adjacent SNPs were grouped together. The ssBayesN0 improved accuracies over BayesN0, and using (co)variance estimates from ssBayesN0 generally yielded higher accuracies than using (co)variance estimates from BayesN0, for the 100 SNPs region size. Our results suggest that it could be a good strategy to estimate (co)variance components from ssBayesN0, and then to use those estimates in genomic prediction using multi-trait single-step SNPBLUP, in routine genomic evaluations.

Short communication: Genomic prediction using different single-step methods in the Finnish red dairy cattle population

Single-step genomic prediction models utilizing both genotyped and nongenotyped animals are likely to become the prevailing tool in genetic evaluations of livestock. Various single-step prediction models have been proposed, based either on estimation of individual marker effects or on direct prediction via a genomic relationship matrix. In this study, a classical pedigree-based animal model, a regular single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) model, algorithm for proven and young (APY) with 2 strategies for choosing core animals, and a single-step Bayesian regression (ssBR) model were compared for 305-d production traits (milk, fat, protein) in the Finnish red dairy cattle population. A residual polygenic effect with 10% of total genetic variance was included in the single-step models to reduce inflation of genomic predictions. Validation reliability was calculated as the squared Pearson correlation coefficient between genomically enhanced breeding value (GEBV) and yield deviation for masked records for 2,056 validation cows from the last year in the data set investigated. The results showed that gains of 0.02 to 0.04 on validation reliability were achieved by using single-step methods compared with the classical animal model. The regular ssGBLUP model and ssBR model with an extra polygenic effect yielded the same results. The APY methods yielded similar reliabilities as the regular ssGBLUP and ssBR. Exact prediction error variance of GEBV could be obtained by ssBR to avoid any approximation methods used for ssGBLUP when inversion left-hand side of mixed model equations is computationally infeasible for large data sets.

Comparison of alternative approaches to single-trait genomic prediction using genotyped and non-genotyped Hanwoo beef cattle

BackgroundGenomic predictions from BayesA and BayesB use training data that include animals with both phenotypes and genotypes. Single-step methodologies allow additional information from non-genotyped relatives to be included in the analysis. The single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (SSGBLUP) method uses a relationship matrix computed from marker and pedigree information, in which missing genotypes are imputed implicitly. Single-step Bayesian regression (SSBR) extends SSGBLUP to BayesB-like models using explicitly imputed genotypes for non-genotyped individuals.MethodsCarcass records included 988 genotyped Hanwoo steers with 35,882 SNPs and 1438 non-genotyped steers that were measured for back-fat thickness (BFT), carcass weight (CWT), eye-muscle area, and marbling score (MAR). Single-trait pedigree-based BLUP, Bayesian methods using only genotyped individuals, SSGBLUP and SSBR methods were compared using cross-validation.ResultsMethods using genomic information always outperformed pedigree-based BLUP when the same phenotypic data were modeled from either genotyped individuals only or both genotyped and non-genotyped individuals. For BFT and MAR, accuracies were higher with single-step methods than with BayesB, BayesC and BayesCπ. Gains in accuracy with the single-step methods ranged from +0.06 to +0.09 for BFT and from +0.05 to +0.07 for MAR. For CWT, SSBR always outperformed the corresponding Bayesian methods that used only genotyped individuals. However, although SSGBLUP incorporated information from non-genotyped individuals, prediction accuracies were lower with SSGBLUP than with BayesC (π = 0.9999) and BayesB (π = 0.98) for CWT because, for this particular trait, there was a benefit from the mixture priors of the effects of the single nucleotide polymorphisms.ConclusionsSingle-step methods are the preferred approaches for prediction combining genotyped and non-genotyped animals. Alternative priors allow SSBR to outperform SSGBLUP in some cases.

Computational strategies for alternative single-step Bayesian regression models with large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals.

BackgroundTwo types of models have been used for single-step genomic prediction and genome-wide association studies that include phenotypes from both genotyped animals and their non-genotyped relatives. The two types are breeding value models (BVM) that fit breeding values explicitly and marker effects models (MEM) that express the breeding values in terms of the effects of observed or imputed genotypes. MEM can accommodate a wider class of analyses, including variable selection or mixture model analyses. The order of the equations that need to be solved and the inverses required in their construction vary widely, and thus the computational effort required depends upon the size of the pedigree, the number of genotyped animals and the number of loci.TheoryWe present computational strategies to avoid storing large, dense blocks of the MME that involve imputed genotypes. Furthermore, we present a hybrid model that fits a MEM for animals with observed genotypes and a BVM for those without genotypes. The hybrid model is computationally attractive for pedigree files containing millions of animals with a large proportion of those being genotyped.ApplicationWe demonstrate the practicality on both the original MEM and the hybrid model using real data with 6,179,960 animals in the pedigree with 4,934,101 phenotypes and 31,453 animals genotyped at 40,214 informative loci. To complete a single-trait analysis on a desk-top computer with four graphics cards required about 3 h using the hybrid model to obtain both preconditioned conjugate gradient solutions and 42,000 Markov chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) samples of breeding values, which allowed making inferences from posterior means, variances and covariances. The MCMC sampling required one quarter of the effort when the hybrid model was used compared to the published MEM.ConclusionsWe present a hybrid model that fits a MEM for animals with genotypes and a BVM for those without genotypes. Its practicality and considerable reduction in computing effort was demonstrated. This model can readily be extended to accommodate multiple traits, multiple breeds, maternal effects, and additional random effects such as polygenic residual effects.