Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T02:02:23.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dissecting total genetic variance into additive and dominance components of purebred and crossbred pig traits

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2019

L. Tusell Open the ORCID record for L. Tusell [Opens in a new window] ,
H. Gilbert ,
Z. G. Vitezica ,
M. J. Mercat ,
A. Legarra  and
C. Larzul
L. Tusell*
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse, Institut National Polytechnique - École Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse, 31320, Castanet-Tolosan, France
H. Gilbert
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse, Institut National Polytechnique - École Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse, 31320, Castanet-Tolosan, France
Z. G. Vitezica
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse, Institut National Polytechnique - École Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse, 31320, Castanet-Tolosan, France
M. J. Mercat
Affiliation:
IFIP Institut du Porc/ALLIANCE R&S, La Motte au Vicomte, 35651 Le Rheu, France
A. Legarra
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse, Institut National Polytechnique - École Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse, 31320, Castanet-Tolosan, France
C. Larzul
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Institut National Polytechnique de Toulouse, Institut National Polytechnique - École Nationale Vétérinaire de Toulouse, 31320, Castanet-Tolosan, France
*
†E-mail: llibertat.tusell-palomero@inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

The partition of the total genetic variance into its additive and non-additive components can differ from trait to trait, and between purebred and crossbred populations. A quantification of these genetic variance components will determine the extent to which it would be of interest to account for dominance in genomic evaluations or to establish mate allocation strategies along different populations and traits. This study aims at assessing the contribution of the additive and dominance genomic variances to the phenotype expression of several purebred Piétrain and crossbred (Piétrain × Large White) pig performances. A total of 636 purebred and 720 crossbred male piglets were phenotyped for 22 traits that can be classified into six groups of traits: growth rate and feed efficiency, carcass composition, meat quality, behaviour, boar taint and puberty. Additive and dominance variances estimated in univariate genotypic models, including additive and dominance genotypic effects, and a genomic inbreeding covariate allowed to retrieve the additive and dominance single nucleotide polymorphism variances for purebred and crossbred performances. These estimated variances were used, together with the allelic frequencies of the parental populations, to obtain additive and dominance variances in terms of genetic breeding values and dominance deviations. Estimates of the Piétrain and Large White allelic contributions to the crossbred variance were of about the same magnitude in all the traits. Estimates of additive genetic variances were similar regardless of the inclusion of dominance. Some traits showed relevant amount of dominance genetic variance with respect to phenotypic variance in both populations (i.e. growth rate 8%, feed conversion ratio 9% to 12%, backfat thickness 14% to 12%, purebreds-crossbreds). Other traits showed higher amount in crossbreds (i.e. ham cut 8% to 13%, loin 7% to 16%, pH semimembranosus 13% to 18%, pH longissimus dorsi 9% to 14%, androstenone 5% to 13% and estradiol 6% to 11%, purebreds-crossbreds). It was not encountered a clear common pattern of dominance expression between groups of analysed traits and between populations. These estimates give initial hints regarding which traits could benefit from accounting for dominance for example to improve genomic estimated breeding value accuracy in genetic evaluations or to boost the total genetic value of progeny by means of assortative mating.

Keywords

variance componentsnon-additive genetic effectsinbreedingcrossbredspork
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 13 , Issue 11 , November 2019 , pp. 2429 - 2439
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aliloo, H, Pryce, JE, González-Recio, O, Cocks, BG, Goddard, ME and Hayes, BJ 2017. Including nonadditive genetic effects in mating programs to maximize dairy farm profitability. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 1203–1222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aliloo, H, Pryce, JE, González-Recio, O, Cocks, BG and Hayes, BJ 2016. Accounting for dominance to improve genomic evaluations of dairy cows for fertility and milk production traits. Genetics Selection Evolution 48, 8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bidanel, JP, Ducos, A, Guéblez, R and Labroue, F 1994. Genetic parameters of backfat thickness, age at 100 kg and ultimate pH in on-farm tested French Landrace and Large White pigs. Livestock Production Science 40, 291–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolormaa, S, Pryce, JE, Zhang, Y, Reverter, A, Barendse, W, Hayes, BJ and Goddard, ME 2015. Non-additive genetic variation in growth, carcass and fertility traits of beef cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 47, 26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christensen, O, Madsen, P, Nielsen, B and Su, G 2014. Genomic evaluation of both purebred and crossbred performances. Genetics Selection Evolution 46, 23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciobanu, DC, Lonergan, SM and Huff-Lonergan, EJ 2011. Genetics of meat quality and carcass traits. In The genetics of the pigs (2nd edition, ed. Rothschild, MF and Ruvinsky, A), pp. 355–389. CAB International, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clutter, AC 2011. Genetics of performance traits. In The genetics of the pig (2nd edition, ed. Rothschild, MF and Ruvinsky, A), pp. 325–354. CAB International, Oxfordshire, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Da, Y, Wang, C, Wang, S and Hu, G 2014. Mixed model methods for genomic prediction and variance component estimation of additive and dominance effects using SNP markers. PLoS One 9, e87666.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daumas, G 2008. Taux de muscle des pièces et appréciation de la composition corporelle des carcasses. Journées Recherche Porcine 40, 61–67.Google Scholar
Daumas, G, Causeur, D, Dhorne, T and Schollhammer, E 1998. Les méthodes de classement des carcasses de porc autorisées en France en 1997. Journées Recherche Porcine 30, 1–6.Google Scholar
Ertl, J, Legarra, A, Vitezica, ZG, Varona, L, Edel, C, Emmerling, R and Götz, K-U 2014. Genomic analysis of dominance effects on milk production and conformation traits in Fleckvieh cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 46, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, DS and MacKay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics (4th edition). Longman Scientific & Technical, Burnt Mill, Harlow, United Kingdom.Google Scholar
Geweke, J 1992. Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
Kang, HS, Lopez, BM, Kim, TH, Kim, HS, Kim, SH, Nam, KC and Seo, KS 2015. Estimation of genetic parameters for pork belly components in Yorkshire pigs. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science 28, 922–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labroue, F, Guéblez, R, Sellier, P and Meunier-Salaun, MC 1994. Feeding behaviour of group-housed large white and Landrace pigs in French central test stations. Livestock Production Science 40, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larzul, C, Roy, PL, Gueblez, R, Talmant, A, Gogue, J, Sellier, P and Monin, G 1997. Effect of halothane genotype (NN, Nn, nn) on growth, carcass and meat quality traits of pigs slaughtered at 95 kg or 125 kg live weight. Journal Animal Breeding Genetics 114, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lopes, MS, Bastiaansen, JWM, Janss, L, Knol, EF and Bovenhuis, H 2015. Estimation of additive, dominance, and imprinting genetic variance using genomic data. G3 5, 2629–2637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lundstrom, K, Matthews, KR and Haugen, JE 2009. Pig meat quality from entire males. Animal 3, 1497–1507.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Metayer, A and Daumas, G 1998. Estimation, par découpe, de la teneur en viande maigre des carcasses de porc. Journées Recherche Porcine 30, 7–11.Google Scholar
Misztal, I 1999. Complex models, more data: simpler programming. Interbull Bulletin 20, 33–42.Google Scholar
Moghaddar, N and van der Werf, JHJ 2017. Genomic estimation of additive and dominance effects and impact of accounting for dominance on accuracy of genomic evaluation in sheep populations. Journal Animal Breeding Genetics 134, 453–462.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrell, CH 1998. Likelihood ratio testing of variance components in the linear mixed effects model using restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 54, 1560–1568 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newcom, DW, Baas, TJ, Mabry, JW and Goodwin, RN 2002. Genetic parameters for pork carcass components. Journal Animal Science 80, 3099–3106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parois, S, Larzul, C and Prunier, A 2017. Associations between the dominance status and sexual development, skin lesions or feeding behaviour of intact male pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 187, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parois, SP, Prunier, A, Mercat, MJ, Merlot, E and Larzul, C 2015. Genetic relationships between measures of sexual development, boar taint, health, and aggressiveness in pigs. Journal Animal Science 93, 3749–3758.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perez, P, de los Campos, G, Crossa, J and Gianola, D 2010. Genomic-enabled prediction based on molecular markers and pedigree using the Bayesian linear regression package in R. Plant Genome 3, 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prunier, A, Brillouet, A, Merlot, E, Meunier-Salaün, MC and Tallet, C 2013. Influence of housing and season on the pubertal development, boar taint compounds and skin lesions of male pigs. Animal 7, 2035–2043.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raftery, AE and Lewis, S 1992. How many iterations in the Gibbs sampler? Oxford University-Press, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Sellier, P and Monin, G 1994. Genetics of pig meat quality: A review. Journal of Muscle Foods Banner 5, 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Su, G, Christensen, OF, Ostersen, T, Henryon, M and Lund, MS 2012. Estimating additive and non-additive genetic variances and predicting genetic merits using genome-wide dense single nucleotide polymorphism markers. PLoS One 7, e45293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toro, M and Varona, L 2010. A note on mate allocation for dominance handling in genomic selection. Genetics Selection Evolution 42, 33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, SP, Farnworth, MJ, White, IMS, Brotherstone, S, Mendl, M, Knap, P, Penny, P and Lawrence, AB 2006. The accumulation of skin lesions and their use as a predictor of individual aggressiveness in pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 96, 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tusell, L, Gilbert, H, Riquet, J, Mercat, MJ, Legarra, A and Larzul, C 2016. Pedigree and genomic evaluation of pigs using a terminal-cross model. Genetics Selection Evolution 48, 32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tusell, L, Gilbert, H, Vitezica, ZG, Mercat, MJ, Legarra, A and Larzul, C 2017. Genomics to estimate additive and dominance genetic variances in purebred and crossbred pig traits. Poster presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science, 28 August – 1 September 2017, Tallinn, Estonia.Google Scholar
Vitezica, ZG, Varona, L, Elsen, J-M, Misztal, I, Herring, W and Legarra, A 2016. Genomic BLUP including additive and dominant variation in purebreds and F1 crossbreds, with an application in pigs. Genetics Selection Evolution 48, 6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitezica, ZG, Varona, L and Legarra, A 2013. On the additive and dominant variance and covariance of individuals within the genomic selection scope. Genetics 195, 1223–1230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wei, M and Werf, JHJ 1994. Maximizing genetic response in crossbreds using both purebred and crossbred information. Animal Science 59, 401–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiang, T, Christensen, OF, Vitezica, ZG and Legarra, A 2016a. Genomic evaluation by including dominance effects and inbreeding depression for purebred and crossbred performance with an application in pigs. Genetics Selection Evolution 48, 92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xiang, T, Nielsen, B, Su, G, Legarra, A and Christensen, OF 2016b. Application of single-step genomic evaluation for crossbred performance in pig. Journal of Animal Science 94, 936–948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeng, J, Toosi, A, Fernando, RL, Dekkers, JC and Garrick, DJ 2013. Genomic selection of purebred animals for crossbred performance in the presence of dominant gene action. Genetics Selection Evolution 45, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed