Estimation of genomic breeding values in Gir cattle using Bayesian methods
Abstract views: 411
/ 
PDF downloads: 212
Authors
-
Kamlesh Trivedi
National Dairy development Board, Anand
-
Nilesh Nayee
National Dairy Development Baord
-
Swapnil Gajjar
National Dairy Development Board, Anand
-
Sujit Saha
National Dairy Development Board, Anand
-
Rajesh Gupta
National Dairy Development Board, Anand
Keywords:
Genomic Breeding Value, Bayesian methods, Gir cattle, Performance recordingAbstract
The paper evaluates different Bayesian methods in estimating genomic breeding values using a female reference population of Gir breed and assesses their predicting ability and compares the results achieved with those using Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (GBLUP). In the current study, BayesA, BayesB, BayesCπ, Bayes Lasso, and Bayes-GBLUP methods were used on the same dataset that employed GBLUP and compared the predicting ability of methods using the same five cross-validation data sets. Phenotypic standard 305-day lactation records of 2571 Gir cows extracted from the INAPH database were used in the current study. The milk yield records were pre-corrected for environmental effects. All 2571 cows were genotyped using INDUSCHIP developed by National Dairy Development Board (NDDB). The correlation of SNP effects between BayesCᴨ and Bayesian Lasso was 0.99 and their correlations to BayesA and BayesB were 0.814 and 0.685 respectively. The correlation of SNP effects of BayesA and BayesB was 0.977. The correlations between the predicted genomic breeding values and the corrected phenotypic values in all methods were about 0.89 and those between estimated genomic breeding values of different Bayesian methods were equal to one. On comparison of the correlations between estimated genomic breeding values and corrected phenotypic values of five cross-validation data sets for each of five Bayesian methods, it was observed that the Bayes-GBLUP performed better than GBLUP and also better than all other four Bayesian methods. The other four Bayesian methods BayesA, BayesB, BayesCᴨ, and BayesBL performed slightly better than GBLUP. The correlations among them were more or less the same. From the current study, it could be concluded that Bayesians methods are very useful in estimating both genetic marker effects associated with QTLs and genomic breeding values and that they could be applied in practice for selecting young calves without phenotypic records, based on their genomic breeding values with reasonably high confidence.
References
Breed Survey. 2013. Estimated livestock population breed wise based on breed wise survey. Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Government of India, New Delhi (available at http://dahd.nic.in/sites/default/filess/Breeding% 20Survey%20Book%20-%20Corrected.pdf).
C. Colombani, A.Legarra, S. Fritz, F.Guillaume, P. Croiseau, V. Ducrocq, and C.Robert-Granié. 2013. Application of Bayesian least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and BayesCπ methods for genomic selection in French Holstein and Montbéliarde breeds. J. Dairy Sci. 96:1–17
Daetwyler, H. D., R. Pong-Wong, B. Villanueva, and J. A. Woolliams, 2010 The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 185: 1021–1031.
de los Campos, G., H. Naya, D. Gianola, J. Crossa, A. Legarra, E. Manfredi, K. Weigel, and J. M. Cotes. 2009. Predicting quantitative traits with regression models for dense molecular markers and pedigree. Genetics 182:375–385.
Habier, D., J. Tetens, F.-R. Seefried, P. Lichtner, and G. Thaller. 2010. The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 42:5.
Hanni P. Karkkainen and Mikko J. Sillanpaa. 2012. Back to Basics for Bayesian Model Building in Genomic Selection. 2012. Genetics, Vol. 191, 969–987.
Hayes, B. J., A. J. Chamberlain, S. Maceachern, K. Savin, H. McPartlan, I. MacLeod, L. Sethuraman, and M. E. Goddard. 2009. A genome map of divergent artificial selection between Bos Taurus dairy cattle and Bos taurus beef cattle. Anim. Genet. 40:176–184.
Legarra, A., C. Robert-Granie, P. Croiseau, F. Guillaume, and S. Fritz. 2011. Improved Lasso for genomic selection. Genet. Res. (Camb.) 93:77–87.
Meuwissen, T. H. E., B. J. Hayes, and M. E. Goddard. 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819–1829.
N. Nayee, S. Gajjar, A. Sudhakar, S. Saha, K. R.Trivedi, and P. Vataliya. 2020. Genomic Selection in Gir Cattle using female reference population. J. of Animal Sciences (accepted for publication in the Indian J. Animal Sciences).
Park T, Casella G (2008). The Bayesian Lasso. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103(482), 681-686.
Paulino Perez and Mexico Gustavo de los Campos. BGLR: A Statistical Package for Whole Genome Regression and Prediction.
Saha S., Nayee N., Shah H., Gajjar S. Kishore G., Gupta R.O. and Trivedi K.R. (2020). Effect of composition and size of the reference population in genotype imputation efficiency of INDUSCHIP in HF Crossbred cattle. Indian J of Dairy Science. 73(3):250-255
Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, Van Der Linde A (2002). Bayesian Measures of Model Complexity and Fit." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 64(4), 583-639.
Verbyla, K. L., B. J. Hayes, P. J. Bowman, and M. E. Goddard, 2009 Accuracy of genomic selection using stochastic search variable selection in Australian Holstein Friesian dairy cattle. Genet. Res. 91: 307–311.