Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Effect of genotyped cows in the reference population on the genomic evaluation of Holstein cattle

  • Y. Uemoto (a1), T. Osawa (a1) and J. Saburi (a1)
Abstract

This study evaluated the dependence of reliability and prediction bias on the prediction method, the contribution of including animals (bulls or cows), and the genetic relatedness, when including genotyped cows in the progeny-tested bull reference population. We performed genomic evaluation using a Japanese Holstein population, and assessed the accuracy of genomic enhanced breeding value (GEBV) for three production traits and 13 linear conformation traits. A total of 4564 animals for production traits and 4172 animals for conformation traits were genotyped using Illumina BovineSNP50 array. Single- and multi-step methods were compared for predicting GEBV in genotyped bull-only and genotyped bull-cow reference populations. No large differences in realized reliability and regression coefficient were found between the two reference populations; however, a slight difference was found between the two methods for production traits. The accuracy of GEBV determined by single-step method increased slightly when genotyped cows were included in the bull reference population, but decreased slightly by multi-step method. A validation study was used to evaluate the accuracy of GEBV when 800 additional genotyped bulls (POPbull) or cows (POPcow) were included in the base reference population composed of 2000 genotyped bulls. The realized reliabilities of POPbull were higher than those of POPcow for all traits. For the gain of realized reliability over the base reference population, the average ratios of POPbull gain to POPcow gain for production traits and conformation traits were 2.6 and 7.2, respectively, and the ratios depended on heritabilities of the traits. For regression coefficient, no large differences were found between the results for POPbull and POPcow. Another validation study was performed to investigate the effect of genetic relatedness between cows and bulls in the reference and test populations. The effect of genetic relationship among bulls in the reference population was also assessed. The results showed that it is important to account for relatedness among bulls in the reference population. Our studies indicate that the prediction method, the contribution ratio of including animals, and genetic relatedness could affect the prediction accuracy in genomic evaluation of Holstein cattle, when including genotyped cows in the reference population.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Effect of genotyped cows in the reference population on the genomic evaluation of Holstein cattle
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Effect of genotyped cows in the reference population on the genomic evaluation of Holstein cattle
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Effect of genotyped cows in the reference population on the genomic evaluation of Holstein cattle
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
E-mail: y0uemoto@nlbc.go.jp
References
Hide All
Aguilar, I, Misztal, I, Johnson, DL, Legarra, A, Tsuruta, S and Lawlor, TJ 2010. Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 743752.
Calus, MPL 2016. Editorial: genomic selection with numerically small reference populations. Animal 10, 10161017.
Clark, SA, Hickey, JM, Daetwyler, HD and van der Werf, JH 2012. The importance of information on relatives for the prediction of genomic breeding values and the implications for the makeup of reference data sets in livestock breeding schemes. Genetics Selection Evolution 44, 4.
Cooper, TA, Wiggans, GR and VanRaden, PM 2015. Short communication: analysis of genomic predictor population for Holstein dairy cattle in the United States – Effects of sex and age. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 27852788.
Daetwyler, HD, Pong-Wong, R, Villanueva, B and Woolliams, JA 2010. The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 185, 10211031.
de Roos, APW 2011. Genomic selection in dairy cattle. PhD thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Fikse, WF and Banos, G 2001. Weighting factors of sire daughter information in international genetic evaluations. Journal of Dairy Science 84, 17591767.
Hayes, BJ, Bowman, PJ, Chamberlain, AJ and Goddard, ME 2009. Invited review: genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 433443.
Hickey, JM, Veerkamp, RF, Calus, MP, Mulder, HA and Thompson, R 2009. Estimation of prediction error variances via Monte Carlo sampling methods using different formulations of the prediction error variance. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 23.
Jairath, L, Dekkers, JCM, Schaeffer, LR, Liu, Z, Burnside, EB and Kolstad, B 1998. Genetic evaluation for herd life in Canada. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 550562.
Koivula, M, Strandén, I, Pösö, J, Aamand, GP and Mäntysaari, EA 2015. Single-step genomic evaluation using multitrait random regression model and test-day data. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 27752784.
Legarra, A, Christensen, OF, Aguilar, I and Misztal, I 2014. Single step, a general approach for genomic selection. Livestock Science 166, 5465.
Liu, Z, Reinhardt, F, Bünger, A and Reents, R 2004. Derivation and calculation of approximate reliabilities and daughter yield-deviations of a random regression test-day model for genetic evaluation of dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 18961907.
Lourenco, DAL, Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Aguilar, I, Ezra, E, Ron, M, Shirak, A and Weller, JI 2014. Methods for genomic evaluation of a relatively small genotyped dairy population and effect of genotyped cow information in multiparity analyses. Journal of Dairy Science 97, 17421752.
Lund, MS, De Roos, APW, De Vries, AG, Druet, T, Ducrocq, V, Fritz, S, Guillaume, F, Guldbrandtsen, B, Liu, Z, Reents, R, Schrooten, C, Seefried, F and Su, G 2011. A common reference population from four European Holstein populations increases reliability of genomic predictions. Genetics Selection Evolution 43, 1.
Mäntysaari, EA, Liu, Z and VanRaden, P 2010. Interbull validation test for genomic evaluations. Interbull Bulletin 41, 1722.
Misztal, I, Aguilar, I, Legarra, A and Lawlor, TJ 2010. Choice of parameters for single-step genomic evaluation for type. Journal of Dairy Science 93 (suppl. 1), 533.
Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Strabel, T, Auvray, B, Druet, T and Lee, DH 2002. BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90). Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 19–23 August 2002, Montpelier, France, Communication No. 28-27.
Purcell, S, Neale, B, Todd-Brown, K, Thomas, L, Ferreira, MA, Bender, D, Maller, J, Sklar, P, de Bakker, PI, Daly, MJ and Sham, PC 2007. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. The American Journal of Human Genetics 81, 559575.
Sargolzaei, M, Chesnais, JP and Schenkel, FS 2014. A new approach for efficient genotype imputation using information from relatives. BMC Genomics 15, 478.
Schopen, GCB and Schrooten, C 2013. Reliability of genomic evaluations in Holstein-Friesians using haplotypes based on the BovineHD BeadChip. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 79457951.
Su, G, Madsen, P, Nielsen, US, Aamand, GP, Wiggans, G, Guldbrandtsen, B and Lund, MS 2016. Sharing reference data and including cows in the reference population improve genomic predictions in Danish Jersey. Animal 10, 10671075.
Su, G, Madsen, P, Nielsen, US, Mäntysaari, EA, Aamand, GP, Christensen, OF and Lund, MS 2012. Genomic prediction for Nordic Red Cattle using one-step and selection index blending. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 909917.
Tsuruta, S, Misztal, I and Lawlor, TJ 2013. Genomic evaluations of final score for US Holsteins benefit from the inclusion of genotypes on cows. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 33323335.
VanRaden, PM 2008. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 44144423.
VanRaden, PM, Van Tassell, CP, Wiggans, GR, Sonstegard, TS, Schnabel, RD, Taylor, JF and Schenkel, FS 2009. Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1624.
Weigel, KA and Gianola, D 1993. A computationally simple Bayesian method for estimation of heterogeneous within-herd phenotypic variances. Journal of Dairy Science 76, 14551465.
Weller, JI, Kashi, Y and Soller, M 1990. Power of daughter and granddaughter designs for determining linkage between marker loci and quantitative trait loci in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 73, 25252537.
Weller, JI, Stoop, WM, Eding, H, Schrooten, C and Ezra, E 2015. Genomic evaluation of a relatively small dairy cattle population by combination with a larger population. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 49454955.
Wiggans, GR, Cooper, TA, VanRaden, PM and Cole, JB 2011a. Adjustment of traditional cow evaluations to improve accuracy of genomic predictions. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 61886193.
Wiggans, GR, VanRaden, PM and Cooper, TA 2011b. The genomic evaluation system in the United States: past, present, future. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 32023211.
Wu, X, Lund, MS, Sun, D, Zhang, Q and Su, G 2015. Impact of relationships between test and training animals and among training animals on reliability of genomic prediction. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 132, 366375.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

animal
  • ISSN: 1751-7311
  • EISSN: 1751-732X
  • URL: /core/journals/animal
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Uemoto supplementary material
Table S1

 PDF (10 KB)
10 KB
PDF
Supplementary materials

Uemoto supplementary material
Table S2

 PDF (24 KB)
24 KB

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed