Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-5kfdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T14:38:43.832Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genotype imputation from various low-density SNP panels and its impact on accuracy of genomic breeding values in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2018

D. A. Grossi ,
L. F. Brito ,
M. Jafarikia ,
F. S. Schenkel  and
Z. Feng
D. A. Grossi
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
L. F. Brito
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
M. Jafarikia
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada Canadian Centre for Swine Improvement, 960 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6, Canada
F. S. Schenkel
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
Z. Feng*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1, Canada
*
†E-mail: zfeng@uoguelph.ca
Get access

Abstract

The uptake of genomic selection (GS) by the swine industry is still limited by the costs of genotyping. A feasible alternative to overcome this challenge is to genotype animals using an affordable low-density (LD) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chip panel followed by accurate imputation to a high-density panel. Therefore, the main objective of this study was to screen incremental densities of LD panels in order to systematically identify one that balances the tradeoffs among imputation accuracy, prediction accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs), and genotype density (directly associated with genotyping costs). Genotypes using the Illumina Porcine60K BeadChip were available for 1378 Duroc (DU), 2361 Landrace (LA) and 3192 Yorkshire (YO) pigs. In addition, pseudo-phenotypes (de-regressed estimated breeding values) for five economically important traits were provided for the analysis. The reference population for genotyping imputation consisted of 931 DU, 1631 LA and 2103 YO animals and the remainder individuals were included in the validation population of each breed. A LD panel of 3000 evenly spaced SNPs (LD3K) yielded high imputation accuracy rates: 93.78% (DU), 97.07% (LA) and 97.00% (YO) and high correlations (>0.97) between the predicted GEBVs using the actual 60 K SNP genotypes and the imputed 60 K SNP genotypes for all traits and breeds. The imputation accuracy was influenced by the reference population size as well as the amount of parental genotype information available in the reference population. However, parental genotype information became less important when the LD panel had at least 3000 SNPs. The correlation of the GEBVs directly increased with an increase in imputation accuracy. When genotype information for both parents was available, a panel of 300 SNPs (imputed to 60 K) yielded GEBV predictions highly correlated (⩾0.90) with genomic predictions obtained based on the true 60 K panel, for all traits and breeds. For a small reference population size with no parents on reference population, it is recommended the use of a panel at least as dense as the LD3K and, when there are two parents in the reference population, a panel as small as the LD300 might be a feasible option. These findings are of great importance for the development of LD panels for swine in order to reduce genotyping costs, increase the uptake of GS and, therefore, optimize the profitability of the swine industry.

Keywords

swinegenomic selectionlow-density panelFImputeGEBV

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 11 , November 2018 , pp. 2235 - 2245
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2018 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Badke, YM, Bates, RO, Ernst, CW, Fix, J and Steibel, JP 2014. Accuracy of estimation of genomic breeding values in pigs using low-density genotypes and imputation. G3: Genes| Genomes| Genetics 4, 623–631.Google Scholar
Badke, YM, Bates, RO, Ernst, CW, Schwab, C, Fix, J, Tassell, CVP and Steibel, JP 2013. Methods of tagSNP selection and other variables affecting imputation accuracy in swine. BMC Genetics 14, 8.Google Scholar
Brito, LF, Clarke, SM, McEwan, JC, Miller, SP, Pickering, NK, Bain, WE, Dodds, KG, Sargolzaei, M and Schenkel, FS 2017. Prediction of genomic breeding values for growth, carcass and meat quality traits in a multi-breed sheep population using a HD SNP chip. BMC Genetics 18, 7.Google Scholar
Brøndum, RF, Rius-Vilarrasa, E, Strandén, I, Su, G, Guldbrandtsen, B, Fikse, W and Lund, MS 2011. Reliabilities of genomic prediction using combined reference data of the Nordic Red dairy cattle populations. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 4700–4707.Google Scholar
Browning, BL and Browning, SR 2009. A unified approach to genotype imputation and haplotype-phase inference for large data sets of trios and unrelated individuals. The American Journal of Human Genetics 84, 210–223.Google Scholar
Browning, BL and Browning, SR 2013. Improving the accuracy and efficiency of identity-by-descent detection in population data. Genetics 194, 459–471.Google Scholar
Calus, M, Bouwman, A, Hickey, J, Veerkamp, R and Mulder, H 2014. Evaluation of measures of correctness of genotype imputation in the context of genomic prediction: a review of livestock applications. Animal 8, 1743–1753.Google Scholar
Carillier, C, Larroque, H, Palhière, I, Clément, V, Rupp, R and Robert-Granié, C 2013. A first step toward genomic selection in the multi-breed French dairy goat population. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 7294–7305.Google Scholar
Chesnais, J, Cooper, T, Wiggans, G, Sargolzaei, M, Pryce, J and Miglior, F 2016. Using genomics to enhance selection of novel traits in North American dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 2413–2427.Google Scholar
Cleveland, M and Hickey, J 2013. Practical implementation of cost-effective genomic selection in commercial pig breeding using imputation. Journal of Animal Science 91, 3583–3592.Google Scholar
Cleveland, MA, Hickey, JM and Forni, S 2012. A common dataset for genomic analysis of livestock populations. G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics 2, 429–435.Google Scholar
Garrick, DJ, Taylor, JF and Fernando, RL 2009. Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 55.Google Scholar
Grossi, DA, Jafarikia, M, Brito, LF, Buzanskas, ME, Sargolzaei, M and Schenkel, FS 2017. Genetic diversity, extent of linkage disequilibrium and persistence of gametic phase in Canadian pigs. BMC Genetics 18, 6.Google Scholar
He, S, Wang, S, Fu, W, Ding, X and Zhang, Q 2015. Imputation of missing genotypes from low‐to high‐density SNP panel in different population designs. Animal Genetics 46, 1–7.Google Scholar
Hickey, JM, Kinghorn, BP, Tier, B, van der Werf, JH and Cleveland, MA 2012. A phasing and imputation method for pedigreed populations that results in a single-stage genomic evaluation. Genetics Selection Evolution 44, 9.Google Scholar
Howie, BN, Donnelly, P and Marchini, J 2009. A flexible and accurate genotype imputation method for the next generation of genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genetics 5, e1000529.Google Scholar
Huang, Y, Hickey, JM, Cleveland, MA and Maltecca, C 2012. Assessment of alternative genotyping strategies to maximize imputation accuracy at minimal cost. Genetics Selection Evolution 44, 25.Google Scholar
Khatkar, MS, Moser, G, Hayes, BJ and Raadsma, HW 2012. Strategies and utility of imputed SNP genotypes for genomic analysis in dairy cattle. BMC Genomics 13, 538.Google Scholar
Knol, EF, Nielsen, B and Knap, PW 2016. Genomic selection in commercial pig breeding. Animal Frontiers 6, 15–22.Google Scholar
Lillehammer, M and Sonesson, A 2011. Genomic selection for maternal traits in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 89, 3908–3916.Google Scholar
Ma, P, Brøndum, RF, Zhang, Q, Lund, MS and Su, G 2013. Comparison of different methods for imputing genome-wide marker genotypes in Swedish and Finnish Red Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 4666–4677.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, T, Hayes, B and Goddard, M 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819–1829.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, T, Hayes, B and Goddard, M 2013. Accelerating improvement of livestock with genomic selection. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 1, 221–237.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, T, Hayes, B and Goddard, M 2016. Genomic selection: a paradigm shift in animal breeding. Animal Frontiers 6, 6–14.Google Scholar
NFACC 2017. Code of practice for the care and handling of pigs. Retrieved on 15 May from https://www.nfacc.ca/pdfs/cod es/pig_code_of_practice.pdf.Google Scholar
Sargolzaei, M, Chesnais, JP and Schenkel, FS 2014. A new approach for efficient genotype imputation using information from relatives. BMC Genomics 15, 478.Google Scholar
Sargolzaei, M, Schenkel, FS and VanRaden, PM 2009. GEBV: genomic breeding value estimator for livestock. In Proceedings of the Dairy Cattle Breeding and Genetics Meeting, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada, pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
Silva, MV, dos Santos, DJ, Boison, SA, Utsunomiya, AT, Carmo, AS, Sonstegard, TS, Cole, JB and Van Tassell, CP 2014. The development of genomics applied to dairy breeding. Livestock Science 166, 66–75.Google Scholar
VanRaden, PM 2008. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4414–4423.Google Scholar
Ventura, RV, Miller, SP, Dodds, KG, Auvray, B, Lee, M, Bixley, M, Clarke, SM and McEwan, JC 2016. Assessing accuracy of imputation using different SNP panel densities in a multi-breed sheep population. Genetics Selection Evolution 48, 71.Google Scholar
Wang, C, Habier, D, Peiris, BL, Wolc, A, Kranis, A, Watson, KA, Avendano, S, Garrick, DJ, Fernando, RL, Lamont, SJ and Dekkers, JCM 2013. Accuracy of genomic prediction using an evenly spaced, low-density single nucleotide polymorphism panel in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 92, 1712–1723.Google Scholar
Wellmann, R, Preuß, S, Tholen, E, Heinkel, J, Wimmers, K and Bennewitz, J 2013. Genomic selection using low density marker panels with application to a sire line in pigs. Genetics Selection Evolution 45, 28.Google Scholar
Weng, Z, Zhang, Z, Zhang, Q, Fu, W, He, S and Ding, X 2013. Comparison of different imputation methods from low-to high-density panels using Chinese Holstein cattle. Animal 7, 729–735.Google Scholar
Wiggans, G, Sonstegard, T, VanRaden, P, Matukumalli, L, Schnabel, R, Taylor, J, Schenkel, F and Van Tassell, C 2009. Selection of single-nucleotide polymorphisms and quality of genotypes used in genomic evaluation of dairy cattle in the United States and Canada. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 3431–3436.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Grossi et al. supplementary material 1

Grossi et al. supplementary material

Download Grossi et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 53.7 KB