The effect of rare alleles on estimated genomic relationships from whole genome sequence data

BMC Genetics

Mario PL Calus³  Rianne van Binsbergen⁴  Grégoire Leroy²  Jack J Windig¹  Sonia E Eynard¹ 

[1] Centre for Genetic Resources the Netherlands, Wageningen UR, Wageningen 6700 AA, The Netherlands;INRA, UMR 1313 Génétique Animale et Biologie Intégrative, Jouy-en-Josas 78350, France;Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, Wageningen 6700 AH, The Netherlands;Biometris, Wageningen UR, Wageningen 6700 AA, The Netherlands

关键词: Inbreeding;    Minor allele frequency;    Rare variants;    Additive genetic relationship;    Whole genome sequence;   

Others  :  1139817
DOI  :  10.1186/s12863-015-0185-0

 received in 2014-12-05, accepted in 2015-02-24,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Relationships between individuals and inbreeding coefficients are commonly used for breeding decisions, but may be affected by the type of data used for their estimation. The proportion of variants with low Minor Allele Frequency (MAF) is larger in whole genome sequence (WGS) data compared to Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) chips. Therefore, WGS data provide true relationships between individuals and may influence breeding decisions and prioritisation for conservation of genetic diversity in livestock. This study identifies differences between relationships and inbreeding coefficients estimated using pedigree, SNP or WGS data for 118 Holstein bulls from the 1000 Bull genomes project. To determine the impact of rare alleles on the estimates we compared three scenarios of MAF restrictions: variants with a MAF higher than 5%, variants with a MAF higher than 1% and variants with a MAF between 1% and 5%.

Results

We observed significant differences between estimated relationships and, although less significantly, inbreeding coefficients from pedigree, SNP or WGS data, and between MAF restriction scenarios. Computed correlations between pedigree and genomic relationships, within groups with similar relationships, ranged from negative to moderate for both estimated relationships and inbreeding coefficients, but were high between estimates from SNP and WGS (0.49 to 0.99). Estimated relationships from genomic information exhibited higher variation than from pedigree. Inbreeding coefficients analysis showed that more complete pedigree records lead to higher correlation between inbreeding coefficients from pedigree and genomic data. Finally, estimates and correlations between additive genetic (A) and genomic (G) relationship matrices were lower, and variances of the relationships were larger when accounting for allele frequencies than without accounting for allele frequencies.

Conclusions

Using pedigree data or genomic information, and including or excluding variants with a MAF below 5% showed significant differences in relationship and inbreeding coefficient estimates. Estimated relationships and inbreeding coefficients are the basis for selection decisions. Therefore, it can be expected that using WGS instead of SNP can affect selection decision. Inclusion of rare variants will give access to the variation they carry, which is of interest for conservation of genetic diversity.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Eynard et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Stock KF, Reents R: Genomic selection: status in different species and challenges for breeding. Reprod Domest Anim 2013, 48:2-10.
• [2]Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard M: Accelerating improvement of livestock with genomic selection. Ann Rev Animal Biosci 2013, 1:221-37.
• [3]Nielsen R: Population genetic analysis of ascertained SNP data. Hum Genomics 2004, 1(3):218-24. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Heslot N, Rutkoski J, Poland J, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME: Impact of marker ascertainment bias on genomic selection accuracy and estimates of genetic diversity. PLoS One 2013, 8(9):e74612.
• [5]Henryon M, Berg P, Sørensen AC: Invited review: animal-breeding schemes using genomic information need breeding plans designed to maximise long-term genetic gains. Livest Sci 2014, 166:38-47.
• [6]Bijma P: Long-term genomic improvement-new challenges for population genetics. J Anim Breed Genet 2012, 129(1):1-2.
• [7]FAO: The state of food and agriculture. Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch, Communication Division FAO, Rome, Italy; 2009.
• [8]Windig JJ, Engelsma KA: Perspectives of genomics for genetic conservation of livestock. Conserv Genet 2010, 11(2):635-41.
• [9]Engelsma KA, Veerkamp RF, Calus MPL, Windig JJ: Consequences for diversity when prioritizing animals for conservation with pedigree or genomic information. J Anim Breed Genet 2011, 128(6):473-81.
• [10]Fernandez J, Villanueva B, Pong-Wong R, Toro MA: Efficiency of the use of pedigree and molecular marker information in conservation programs. Genetics 2005, 170(3):1313-21.
• [11]Daetwyler HD, Capitan A, Pausch H, Stothard P, van Binsbergen R, Brondum RF, et al.: Whole-genome sequencing of 234 bulls facilitates mapping of monogenic and complex traits in cattle. Nat Genet 2014, 46:858-65.
• [12]Wang J, Shete S: Testing departure from Hardy-Weinberg proportions. Methods Mol Biol 2012, 850:77-102.
• [13]Wigginton JE, Cutler DJ, Abecasis GR: A note on exact tests of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Am J Hum Genet 2005, 76(5):887-93.
• [14]Yang JA, Benyamin B, McEvoy BP, Gordon S, Henders AK, Nyholt DR, et al.: Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nat Genet 2010, 42(7):565-9.
• [15]Druet T, Macleod IM, Hayes BJ: Toward genomic prediction from whole-genome sequence data: impact of sequencing design on genotype imputation and accuracy of predictions. Heredity 2014, 112(1):39-47.
• [16]Edriss V, Guldbrandtsen B, Lund MS, Su G: Effect of marker-data editing on the accuracy of genomic prediction. J Anim Breed Genet 2013, 130(2):128-35.
• [17]Falconer DS, Maclkay TFC: Resemblance between relatives. In Quantative Genetics 4th edition. Edited by Ltd LG. Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow, England; 1996.
• [18]Wilcoxon F: Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biom Bull 1945, 1(6):80-3.
• [19]R Development Core Team (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL http://www.R-project.org.
• [20]Revelle W: psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. In., Version=1.5.1 edn. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA: http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych; 2015.
• [21]Sargolzaei M, Iwaisaki H, Colleau JJ: A fast algorithm for computing inbreeding coefficients in large populations. J Anim Breed Genet 2005, 122(5):325-31.
• [22]Wright S: Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. Am Nat 1922, 56(645):330-8.
• [23]Pérez-Enciso M: Genomic relationships computed from either next-generation sequence or array SNP data. J Anim Breed Genet 2014, 131:85-96.
• [24]van Binsbergen R, Bink MCAM, Calus MPL, Hayes B, van Eeuwijk FA, Hulsegge I, et al.: Accuracy of imputation to whole-genome sequence data in Holstein Friesian cattle. Genet Sel Evol 2014, 46(1):41. BioMed Central Full Text
• [25]Li Y, Sidore C, Kang HM, Boehnke M, Abecasis GR: Low-coverage sequencing: implications for design of complex trait association studies. Genome Res 2011, 21(6):940-51.
• [26]Visscher PM, Medland SE, Ferreira MAR, Morley KI, Zhu G, Cornes BK, et al.: Assumption-free estimation of heritability from genome-wide identity-by-descent sharing between full siblings. PLoS Genet 2006, 2(3):316-25.
• [27]Eding H, Meuwissen THE: Marker-based estimates of between and within population kinships for the conservation of genetic diversity. J Anim Breed Genet 2001, 118(3):141-59.
• [28]VanRaden PM: Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci 2008, 91(11):4414-23.
• [29]Gengler N, Mayeres P, Szydlowski M: A simple method to approximate gene content in large pedigree populations: application to the myostatin gene in dual-purpose Belgian Blue cattle. Animal 2007, 1(1):21-8.
• [30]Luan T, Yu X, Dolezal M, Bagnato A, Meuwissen T: Genomic prediction based on runs of homozygosity. Genet Sel Evol 2014, 46(1):64. BioMed Central Full Text
• [31]Forni S, Aguilar I, Misztal I: Different genomic relationship matrices for single-step analysis using phenotypic, pedigree and genomic information. Genet Sel Evol 2011, 43:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [32]Makgahlela ML, Stranden I, Nielsen US, Sillanpaa MJ, Mantysaari EA: The estimation of genomic relationships using breedwise allele frequencies among animals in multibreed populations. J Dairy Sci 2013, 96(8):5364-75.
• [33]Calus MPL, Mulder HA, Bastiaansen JWM: Identification of Mendelian inconsistencies between SNP and pedigree information of sibs. Genet Sel Evol 2011, 43:34. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Keller MC, Visscher PM, Goddard ME: Quantification of inbreeding due to distant ancestors and its detection using dense single nucleotide polymorphism data. Genetics 2011, 189(1):237-U920.
• [35]Curiecohen M: Estimates of inbreeding in a natural population-A comparison of sampling properties. Genetics 1982, 100(2):339-58.