Efficiency of genomic selection using Bayesian multi-marker models for traits selected to reflect a wide range of heritabilities and frequencies of detected quantitative traits loci in mice

BMC Genetics

Rainer Roehe¹  Cheryl J Ashworth³  Luc LG Janss²  Guosheng Su²  Daniel Sorensen²  Dagmar NRG Kapell¹ 

[1] Sustainable Livestock Systems Group, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK;Faculty of Science and Technology, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, DK-8830, Tjele, Denmark;The Roslin Institute and R(D)SVS, The University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK

关键词: Quantitative Trait Loci;    Heritabilities;    Bayesian Analysis;    Genomic Selection;   

Others  :  1122459
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2156-13-42

 received in 2011-11-08, accepted in 2012-05-31,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Genomic selection uses dense single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) markers to predict breeding values, as compared to conventional evaluations which estimate polygenic effects based on phenotypic records and pedigree information. The objective of this study was to compare polygenic, genomic and combined polygenic-genomic models, including mixture models (labelled according to the percentage of genotyped SNP markers considered to have a substantial effect, ranging from 2.5% to 100%). The data consisted of phenotypes and SNP genotypes (10,946 SNPs) of 2,188 mice. Various growth, behavioural and physiological traits were selected for the analysis to reflect a wide range of heritabilities (0.10 to 0.74) and numbers of detected quantitative traits loci (QTL) (1 to 20) affecting those traits. The analysis included estimation of variance components and cross-validation within and between families.

Results

Genomic selection showed a high predictive ability (PA) in comparison to traditional polygenic selection, especially for traits of moderate heritability and when cross-validation was between families. This occurred although the proportion of genomic variance of traits using genomic models was 22 to 33% smaller than using polygenic models. Using a 2.5% mixture genomic model, the proportion of genomic variance was 79% smaller relative to the polygenic model. Although the proportion of variance explained by the markers was reduced further when a smaller number of SNPs was assumed to have a substantial effect on the trait, PA of genomic selection for most traits was little affected. These low mixture percentages resulted in improved estimates of single SNP effects. Genomic models implemented for traits with fewer QTLs showed even lower PA than the polygenic models.

Conclusions

Genomic selection generally performed better than traditional polygenic selection, especially in the context of between family cross-validation. Reducing the number of markers considered to affect the trait did not significantly change PA for most traits, particularly in the case of within family cross-validation, but increased the number of markers found to be associated with QTLs. The underlying number of QTLs affecting the trait has an effect on PA, with a smaller number of QTLs resulting in lower PA using the genomic model compared to the polygenic model.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Kapell et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME: Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001, 157(4):1819-1829.
• [2]Wong CK, Bernardo R: Genomewide selection in oil palm: increasing selection gain per unit time and cost with small populations. Theor Appl Genet 2008, 116(6):815-824.
• [3]Schaeffer LR: Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle. J Anim Breed Genet 2006, 123(4):218-223.
• [4]Turner SP, Roehe R, D'Eath RB, Ison SH, Farish M, Jack MC, Lundeheim N, Rydhmer L, Lawrence AB: Genetic validation of postmixing skin injuries in pigs as an indicator of aggressiveness and the relationship with injuries under more stable social conditions. J Anim Sci 2009, 87(10):3076-3082.
• [5]Visscher PM, Macgregor S, Benyamin B, Zhu G, Gordon S, Medland S, Hill WG, Hottenga JJ, Willemsen G, Boomsma DI, et al.: Genome partitioning of genetic variation for height from 11,214 sibling pairs. Am J Hum Genet 2007, 81(5):1104-1110.
• [6]Manolio TA, Collins FS, Cox NJ, Goldstein DB, Hindorff LA, Hunter DJ, McCarthy MI, Ramos EM, Cardon LR, Chakravarti A, et al.: Finding the missing heritability of complex diseases. Nature 2009, 461(7265):747-753.
• [7]Olsen HG, Hayes BJ, Kent MP, Nome T, Svendsen M, Lien S: A genome wide association study for QTL affecting direct and maternal effects of stillbirth and dystocia in cattle. Anim Genet 2010, 41(3):273-280.
• [8]Li J: Prioritize and select SNPs for association studies with multi-stage designs. J Comput Biol 2008, 15(3):241-257.
• [9]Solberg TR, Sonesson AK, Woolliams JA, Meuwissen THE: Reducing dimensionality for prediction of genome-wide breeding values. Genet Sel Evol 2009, 41:8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [10]Usai MG, Goddard ME, Hayes BJ: LASSO with cross-validation for genomic selection. Genet Res 2009, 91(6):427-436.
• [11]Valdar W, Solberg LC, Gauguier D, Cookson WO, Rawlins JNP, Mott R, Flint J: Genetic and environmental effects on complex traits in mice. Genetics 2006, 174(2):959-984.
• [12]Yang JA, Benyamin B, McEvoy BP, Gordon S, Henders AK, Nyholt DR, Madden PA, Heath AC, Martin NG, Montgomery GW, et al.: Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nature Genet 2010, 42(7):565-U131.
• [13]Legarra A, Robert-Granie C, Manfredi E, Elsen J-M: Performance of genomic selection in mice. Genetics 2008, 180(1):611-618.
• [14]Valdar W, Solberg LC, Gauguier D, Burnett S, Klenerman P, OCookson W, Taylor MS, Rawlins JNP, Mott R, Flint J: Genome-wide genetic association of complex traits in heterogeneous stock mice. Nature Genet 2006, 38(8):879-887.
• [15]Zhong SQ, Dekkers JCM, Fernando RL, Jannink JL: Factors affecting accuracy from genomic selection in populations derived from multiple inbred lines: a barley case study. Genetics 2009, 182(1):355-364.
• [16]Kizilkaya K, Fernando RL, Garrick DJ: Genomic prediction of simulated multibreed and purebred performance using observed fifty thousand single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes. J Anim Sci 2009, 88(2):544-551.
• [17]Meuwissen T, Goddard M: Accurate Prediction of Genetic Values for Complex Traits by Whole-Genome Resequencing. Genetics 2010, 185(2):623-631.
• [18]Lee SH, Van der Werf JHJ, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME, Visscher PM: Predicting unobserved phenotypes for complex traits from whole-genome SNP data. PLoS Genet 2008, 4(10):11.
• [19]Goddard ME, Hayes BJ: Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes. Nat Rev Genet 2009, 10(6):381-391.
• [20]Delos Campos G, Naya H, Gianola D, Crossa J, Legarra A, Manfredi E, Weigel K, Cotes JM: Predicting quantitative traits with regression models for dense molecular markers and pedigree. Genetics 2009, 182(:375-385.
• [21]Calus MPL, Veerkamp RF: Accuracy of breeding values when using and ignoring the polygenic effect in genomic breeding value estimation with a marker density of one SNP per cM. J Anim Breed Genet 2007, 124(6):362-368.
• [22]Su G, Guldbrandtsen B, Gregersen VR, Lund MS: Preliminary investigation on reliability of genomic estimated breeding values in the Danish Holstein population. J Dairy Sci 2009, 93(3):1175-1183.
• [23]Satagopan JM, Elston RC: Optimal two-stage genotyping in population-based association studies. Genet Epidemiol 2003, 25(2):149-157.
• [24]Daetwyler HD, Wiggans GR, Hayes BJ, Woolliams JA, Goddard ME: Imputation of missing genotypes from sparse to high density using long-range phasing. In 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Leipzig, Germany: 2010. , ; 2010. Communication No. 0539
• [25]Hickey JM, Kinghorn BP, Cleveland MA, Tier B, Van der Werf JHJ: Recursive long range phasing and long haplotype library imputation: building a global haplotype library for Holstein cattle. 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Leipzig, Germany: 2010 2010. Communication No. 0934
• [26]Christensen OF, Lund MS: Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genet Sel Evol 2010, 42:8. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]Habier D, Fernando RL, Kizilkaya K, Garrick DJ: Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection. BMC Bioinformatics 2011, 12:186. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]The Genetic Architecture of Complex Traits in Heterogeneous Stock Mice [http://gscan.well.ox.ac.uk/] webcite
• [29]Solberg LC, Valdar W, Gauguier D, Nunez G, Taylor A, Burnett S, Arboledas-Hita C, Hernandez-Pliego P, Davidson S, Burns P, et al.: A protocol for high-throughput phenotyping, suitable for quantitative trait analysis in mice. Mamm Genome 2006, 17(2):129-146.
• [30]Sorensen D, Gianola D: Likelihood Bayesian and MCMC methods in quantitative genetics. Springer Verlag; 2002.
• [31]Janss LLG: iBay manual version 1.46. Janss Biostatistics, Leiden, The Netherlands; 2008.