Genomic accuracy in different genetic architecture and genomic structure


Abstract views: 116 / PDF downloads: 55

Authors

  • F ALA NOSHAHR Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz University, Tabriz, 29 Bahman Boulevar 516 66 Iran
  • S A RAFAT Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz University, Tabriz, 29 Bahman Boulevar 516 66 Iran
  • R IMANY-NABIYYI Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz University, Tabriz, 29 Bahman Boulevar 516 66 Iran
  • S ALIJANI Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz University, Tabriz, 29 Bahman Boulevar 516 66 Iran
  • C ROBERT GRANIE Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz University, Tabriz, 29 Bahman Boulevar 516 66 Iran

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v87i3.68861

Keywords:

BayesA, BayesB, GBLUP, Genomic accuracy, Marker density, Ne

Abstract

Genomic selection has been widely implemented in national and international genetic evaluation in the animal industry, because of its potential advantages over traditional selection methods and the availability of commercial high density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panels.Considerable uncertainty currently exists in determining which genome-wide evaluation method is the most appropriate. We hypothesize that genome-wide methods deal differently with the genetic architecture of quantitative traits and genomes. A genomic linear unbiased prediction method (GBLUP) and a genomic nonlinear Bayesian variable selection methods (BayesA and BayesB) were compared using stochastic simulation across three effective population sizes (Ne). Thereby, a genome with three chromosomes, 100 cM each was simulated. For each animal, a trait was simulated with heritability of 0.50, three different marker densities (1000, 2000 and 3000 markers) and number of QTL was assumed to be either 100, 200 or 300. Data were simulated with two different distributions for the QTL effect which were uniform and gamma (a= 1.66, b=0.4). Marker density, number of QTL and QTL effect distributions significantly affected the genomic accuracy with different Ne. BayesB produced estimates with higher accuracies in traits influenced by a low number of QTL, high marker density, gamma QTL effect distribution and with high Ne.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Daetwyler H D, Pong-Wong R, Villanueva B and Woolliams J A. 2010. The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 185: 1021–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.110.116855

De los Campos G, Vazquez A I, Fernando R L and Daniel S. 2013b. Prediction of complex human traits using the genomic best linear unbiased predictor. PLoS Genetics 7(7): e1003608. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1003608

Goddard M E, Hayes B J and Meuwissen T H E. 2011. Using the genomic relationship matrix to predict the acuracy of genomic selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 128: 409–21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2011.00964.x

Habier D, Fernando R L, Kizilkaya K and Garrick D J. 2007. Extension of the Bayesian alphabet for genomic selection. BMC Bioinformatics 12: 186–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-186

Nadaf J and Pong-Wong R. 2011. Applying different genomic evaluation approaches on QTLMAS2010 dataset. BMC Proc 5(3): 9–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-6561-5-S3-S9

Sargolzaei M and Schenkel F S. 2009. QMSim: a large-scale genome simulator for livestock. Bioinformatics 25: 680–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp045

Shirali M, Miraei-Ashtiani S R, Pakdel A, Haley C and Pong- Wong R. 2015. A comparison of the sensitivity of the BayesC and genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) methods of estimating genomic breeding values under different quantitative trait locus (QTL) model assumptions. Iranian Journal of Animal Science 5(1):41–46.

Solberg T R, Sonesson A K, Woolliams J A and Meuwissen T H E. 2008. Genomic selection using different marker types and densities. Journal of Animal Science 86: 2447–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0010

Wimmer V, Lehermeier C, Albrecht T, Auinger H J, Wang Y and Schön C C. 2013. Genome-wide prediction of traits with different genetic architecture through efficient variable selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 195: 573– 87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.113.150078

Downloads

Submitted

2017-03-20

Published

2017-03-21

Issue

Section

Articles

How to Cite

NOSHAHR, F. A., RAFAT, S. A., IMANY-NABIYYI, R., ALIJANI, S., & GRANIE, C. R. (2017). Genomic accuracy in different genetic architecture and genomic structure. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 87(3), 324–328. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v87i3.68861
Citation