Accuracy of genome-wide imputation in Braford and Hereford beef cattle

BMC Genetics

Flávio S Schenkel³  Steven G Larmer³  Medhi Sargolzaei²  Fernando F Cardoso¹  José Braccini¹  Mario L Piccoli³ 

[1] National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Brasília, Brazil;The Semex Alliance, Guelph, ON, Canada;Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada

关键词: High density panel;    Hereford;    Low density panel;    Imputation accuracy;    Braford;   

Others  :  1121341
DOI  :  10.1186/s12863-014-0157-9

 received in 2014-07-06, accepted in 2014-12-18,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Strategies for imputing genotypes from the Illumina-Bovine3K, Illumina-BovineLD (6K), BeefLD-GGP (8K), a non-commercial-15K and IndicusLD-GGP (20K) to either Illumina-BovineSNP50 (50K) or to Illumina-BovineHD (777K) SNP panel, as well as for imputing from 50K, GGP-IndicusHD (90iK) and GGP-BeefHD (90tK) to 777K were investigated. Imputation of low density (<50K) genotypes to 777K was carried out in either one or two steps. Imputation of ungenotyped parents (n = 37 sires) with four or more offspring to the 50K panel was also assessed. There were 2,946 Braford, 664 Hereford and 88 Nellore animals, from which 71, 59 and 88 were genotyped with the 777K panel, while all others had 50K genotypes. The reference population was comprised of 2,735 animals and 175 bulls for 50K and 777K, respectively. The low density panels were simulated by masking genotypes in the 50K or 777K panel for animals born in 2011. Analyses were performed using both Beagle and FImpute software. Genotype imputation accuracy was measured by concordance rate and allelic R² between true and imputed genotypes.

Results

The average concordance rate using FImpute was 0.943 and 0.921 averaged across all simulated low density panels to 50K or to 777K, respectively, in comparison with 0.927 and 0.895 using Beagle. The allelic R² was 0.912 and 0.866 for imputation to 50K or to 777K using FImpute, respectively, and 0.890 and 0.826 using Beagle. One and two steps imputation to 777K produced averaged concordance rates of 0.806 and 0.892 and allelic R² of 0.674 and 0.819, respectively. Imputation of low density panels to 50K, with the exception of 3K, had overall concordance rates greater than 0.940 and allelic R² greater than 0.919. Ungenotyped animals were imputed to 50K panel with an average concordance rate of 0.950 by FImpute.

Conclusion

FImpute accuracy outperformed Beagle on both imputation to 50K and to 777K. Two-step outperformed one-step imputation for imputing to 777K. Ungenotyped animals that have four or more offspring can have their 50K genotypes accurately inferred using FImpute. All low density panels, except the 3K, can be used to impute to the 50K using FImpute or Beagle with high concordance rate and allelic R².

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Piccoli et al.; licensee Biomed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Elsik CG, Tellam RL, Worley KC: The Bovine Genome Sequencing and Analysis Consortium: The genome sequence of taurine cattle: a window to ruminant biology and evolution. Science 2009, 324:522-528.
• [2]Zhang Z, Druet T: Marker imputation with low-density marker panels in Dutch Holstein cattle. J Dairy Sci 2010, 93:5487-5494.
• [3]Druet T, Schrooten C, de Roos APW: Imputation of genotypes from different single nucleotide polymorphism panels in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2010, 93:5443-5454.
• [4]Hozé C, Fouilloux M-N, Venot E, Guillaume F, Dassonneville R, Fritz S, Ducrocq V, Phocas F, Boichard D, Croiseau P: High-density marker imputation accuracy in sixteen French cattle breeds. Genet Sel Evol 2013, 45:33. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Ventura RV, Lu D, Schenkel FS, Wang Z, Li C, Miller SP: Impact of reference population on accuracy of imputation from 6K to 50K SNP chips in purebred and crossbreed beef cattle. J Anim Sci 2014, 92:1433-1444.
• [6]Corbin LJ, Kranis A, Blott SC, Swinburne JE, Vaudin M, Bishop SC, Woolliams J: The utility of low-density genotyping for imputation in the Thoroughbred horse. Genet Sel Evol 2014, 46:9. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Huang Y, Hickey JM, Cleveland MA, Maltecca C: Assessment of alternative genotyping strategies to maximize imputation accuracy at minimal cost. Genet Sel Evol 2012, 44:25. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Browning SR, Browning BL: Rapid and accurate haplotype phasing and missing-data inference for whole-genome association studies by use of localized haplotype clustering. Am J Hum Genet 2007, 81:1084-1097.
• [9]Druet T, Georges M: A hidden markov model combining linkage and linkage disequilibrium information for haplotype reconstruction and quantitative trait locus fine mapping. Genetics 2010, 184:789-798.
• [10]Howie B, Marchini J, Stephens M: Genotype imputation with thousands of genomes. G3 (Bethesda) 2011, 1:457-469.
• [11]Sargolzaei M, Chesnais JP, Schenkel FS: A new approach for efficient genotype imputation using information from relatives. BMC Genomics 2014, 15:478. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]VanRaden PM, O’Connell JR, Wiggans GR, Weigel KA: Genomic evaluations with many more genotypes. Genet Sel Evol 2011, 43:10. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AJ, Goddard ME: Invited review: genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. J Dairy Sci 2009, 92:433-443.
• [14]Aguilar I, Misztal I, Johnson DL, Legarra A, Tsuruta S, Lawlor TJ: Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. J Dairy Sci 2010, 93:743-752.
• [15]Brito FV, Neto JB, Sargolzaei M, Cobuci JA, Schenkel FS: Accuracy of genomic selection in simulated populations mimicking the extent of linkage disequilibrium in beef cattle. BMC Genet 2011, 12:80. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Sargolzaei M, Schenkel FS, Chesnais J: Impact of amount of dam genotypic information on family-based imputation accuracy. In Dairy Cattle Breed Genet Comm Meet 2010. Guelph/ON Canada; 2010
• [17]Dassonneville R, Fritz S, Ducrocq V, Boichard D: Short communication: Imputation performances of 3 low-density marker panels in beef and dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 2012, 95:4136-4140.
• [18]IBGE: Produção Da Pecuária Municipal 2012 (In Portuguese). Brasília, Brazil; 2012:71.
• [19]Índex ASBIA - importação, exportação e comercialização de sêmen 2011 (In portuguese) [http://www.asbia.org.br/novo/upload/mercado/relatorio2011.pdf]
• [20]Fries LA: Cruzamentos em Gado de Corte (In portuguese). In 4o Simpósio sobre Pecuária Corte, 8–10 Outubro 1996. Piracicaba/SP, Brasil; 1996
• [21]Carvalheiro R, Boison SA, Neves HHR, Sargolzaei M, Schenkel FS, Utsunomiya YT, O’Brien AMP, Sölkner J, McEwan JC, van Tassell CP, Sonstegard TS, Garcia JF: Accuracy of genotype imputation in Nelore cattle. Genet Sel Evol 2014, 46:69. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Dassonneville R, Brøndum RF, Druet T, Fritz S, Guillaume F, Guldbrandtsen B, Lund MS, Ducrocq V, Su G: Effect of imputing markers from a low-density chip on the reliability of genomic breeding values in Holstein populations. J Dairy Sci 2011, 94:3679-3686.
• [23]Nicolazzi EL, Biffani S, Jansen G: Short communication: imputing genotypes using PedImpute fast algorithm combining pedigree and population information. J Dairy Sci 2013, 96:2649-2653.
• [24]Pausch H, Aigner B, Emmerling R, Edel C, Götz K-U, Fries R: Imputation of high-density genotypes in the Fleckvieh cattle population. Genet Sel Evol 2013, 45:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Browning BL, Browning SR: A unified approach to genotype imputation and haplotype-phase inference for large data sets of trios and unrelated individuals. Am J Hum Genet 2009, 84:210-223.
• [26]Rabiner LR, Juang BH: An introduction to hidden Markov models.IEEE/ASSP 1986.
• [27]Cochran WG, Snedecor GW: Statistical Methods. 8th edition. Iowa State University Press, Ames; 1989.
• [28]Berry DP, McClure MC, Mullen MP: Within- and across-breed imputation of high-density genotypes in dairy and beef cattle from medium- and low-density genotypes. J Anim Breed Genet 2013, 131:165-172.
• [29]Ma P, Brøndum RF, Zhang Q, Lund MS, Su G: Comparison of different methods for imputing genome-wide marker genotypes in Swedish and Finnish Red Cattle. J Dairy Sci 2013, 96:4666-4677.
• [30]Larmer SG, Sargolzaei M, Schenkel FS: Extent of linkage disequilibrium, consistency of gametic phase, and imputation accuracy within and across Canadian dairy breeds. J Dairy Sci 2014, 97:1-14.
• [31]Wang H, Woodward B, Bauck S, Rekaya R: Imputation of missing SNP genotypes using low density panels. Livest Sci 2012, 146:80-83.
• [32]Huang Y, Maltecca C: Effects of reduced panel, reference origin, and genetic relationship on imputation of genotypes in Hereford cattle. J Anim Sci 2012, 90:4203-4208.
• [33]Chud TCS: Metodologias E Estratégias de Imputação de Marcadores Genéticos Em Bovinos Da Raça Canchim (in Portuguese). Joboticabal/SP - Brazil; 2014
• [34]Sun C, Wu X-L, Weigel KA, Rosa GJM, Bauck S, Woodward BW, Schnabel RD, Taylor JF, Gianola D: An ensemble-based approach to imputation of moderate-density genotypes for genomic selection with application to Angus cattle. Genet Res (Camb) 2012, 94:133-150.
• [35]Berry DP, Kearney JF: Imputation of genotypes from low- to high-density genotyping platforms and implications for genomic selection. Animal 2011, 5:1162-1169.
• [36]Bouwman AC, Hickey JM, Calus MPL, Veerkamp RF: Imputation of non-genotyped individuals based on genotyped relatives: assessing the imputation accuracy of a real case scenario in dairy cattle. Genet Sel Evol 2014, 46:6. BioMed Central Full Text
• [37]Pimentel ECG, Wensch-Dorendorf M, König S, Swalve HH: Enlarging a training set for genomic selection by imputation of un-genotyped animals in populations of varying genetic architecture. Genet Sel Evol 2013, 45:12. BioMed Central Full Text
• [38]Berry DP, McParland S, Kearney JF, Sargolzaei M, Mullen MP: Imputation of ungenotyped parental genotypes in dairy and beef cattle from progeny genotypes. Animal 2014, 8:895-903.
• [39]Hickey JM, Kinghorn BP, Tier B, van der Werf JHJ, Cleveland MA: A phasing and imputation method for pedigreed populations that results in a single-stage genomic evaluation. Genet Sel Evol 2012, 44:9. BioMed Central Full Text