• Title/Summary/Keyword: Genome Based Linear Unbiased Prediction Method [GBLUP]

Search Result 3, Processing Time 0.018 seconds

Comparison of genomic predictions for carcass and reproduction traits in Berkshire, Duroc and Yorkshire populations in Korea

  • Iqbal, Asif;Choi, Tae-Jeong;Kim, You-Sam;Lee, Yun-Mi;Alam, M. Zahangir;Jung, Jong-Hyun;Choe, Ho-Sung;Kim, Jong-Joo
    • Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
    • /
    • v.32 no.11
    • /
    • pp.1657-1663
    • /
    • 2019
  • Objective: A genome-based best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) method was applied to evaluate accuracies of genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) of carcass and reproductive traits in Berkshire, Duroc and Yorkshire populations in Korean swine breeding farms. Methods: The data comprised a total of 1,870, 696, and 1,723 genotyped pigs belonging to Berkshire, Duroc and Yorkshire breeds, respectively. Reference populations for carcass traits consisted of 888 Berkshire, 466 Duroc, and 1,208 Yorkshire pigs, and those for reproductive traits comprised 210, 154, and 890 dams for the respective breeds. The carcass traits analyzed were backfat thickness (BFT) and carcass weight (CWT), and the reproductive traits were total number born (TNB) and number born alive (NBA). For each trait, GEBV accuracies were evaluated with a GEBV BLUP model and realized GEBVs. Results: The accuracies under the GBLUP model for BFT and CWT ranged from 0.33-0.72 and 0.33-0.63, respectively. For NBA and TNB, the model accuracies ranged 0.32 to 0.54 and 0.39 to 0.56, respectively. The realized accuracy estimates for BFT and CWT ranged 0.30 to 0.46 and 0.09 to 0.27, respectively, and 0.50 to 0.70 and 0.70 to 0.87 for NBA and TNB, respectively. For the carcass traits, the GEBV accuracies under the GBLUP model were higher than the realized GEBV accuracies across the breed populations, while for reproductive traits the realized accuracies were higher than the model based GEBV accuracies. Conclusion: The genomic prediction accuracy increased with reference population size and heritability of the trait. The GEBV accuracies were also influenced by GEBV estimation method, such that careful selection of animals based on the estimated GEBVs is needed. GEBV accuracy will increase with a larger sized reference population, which would be more beneficial for traits with low heritability such as reproductive traits.

Evaluation of Genome Based Estimated Breeding Values for Meat Quality in a Berkshire Population Using High Density Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Chips

  • Baby, S.;Hyeong, K.E.;Lee, Y.M.;Jung, J.H.;Oh, D.Y.;Nam, K.C.;Kim, T.H.;Lee, H.K.;Kim, Jong-Joo
    • Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
    • /
    • v.27 no.11
    • /
    • pp.1540-1547
    • /
    • 2014
  • The accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) was evaluated for sixteen meat quality traits in a Berkshire population (n = 1,191) that was collected from Dasan breeding farm, Namwon, Korea. The animals were genotyped with the Illumina porcine 62 K single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) bead chips, in which a set of 36,605 SNPs were available after quality control tests. Two methods were applied to evaluate GEBV accuracies, i.e. genome based linear unbiased prediction method (GBLUP) and Bayes B, using ASREML 3.0 and Gensel 4.0 software, respectively. The traits composed different sets of training (both genotypes and phenotypes) and testing (genotypes only) data. Under the GBLUP model, the GEBV accuracies for the training data ranged from $0.42{\pm}0.08$ for collagen to $0.75{\pm}0.02$ for water holding capacity with an average of $0.65{\pm}0.04$ across all the traits. Under the Bayes B model, the GEBV accuracy ranged from $0.10{\pm}0.14$ for National Pork Producers Council (NPCC) marbling score to $0.76{\pm}0.04$ for drip loss, with an average of $0.49{\pm}0.10$. For the testing samples, the GEBV accuracy had an average of $0.46{\pm}0.10$ under the GBLUP model, ranging from $0.20{\pm}0.18$ for protein to $0.65{\pm}0.06$ for drip loss. Under the Bayes B model, the GEBV accuracy ranged from $0.04{\pm}0.09$ for NPCC marbling score to $0.72{\pm}0.05$ for drip loss with an average of $0.38{\pm}0.13$. The GEBV accuracy increased with the size of the training data and heritability. In general, the GEBV accuracies under the Bayes B model were lower than under the GBLUP model, especially when the training sample size was small. Our results suggest that a much greater training sample size is needed to get better GEBV accuracies for the testing samples.

Comparison of genome-wide association and genomic prediction methods for milk production traits in Korean Holstein cattle

  • Lee, SeokHyun;Dang, ChangGwon;Choy, YunHo;Do, ChangHee;Cho, Kwanghyun;Kim, Jongjoo;Kim, Yousam;Lee, Jungjae
    • Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
    • /
    • v.32 no.7
    • /
    • pp.913-921
    • /
    • 2019
  • Objective: The objectives of this study were to compare identified informative regions through two genome-wide association study (GWAS) approaches and determine the accuracy and bias of the direct genomic value (DGV) for milk production traits in Korean Holstein cattle, using two genomic prediction approaches: single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ss-GBLUP) and Bayesian Bayes-B. Methods: Records on production traits such as adjusted 305-day milk (MY305), fat (FY305), and protein (PY305) yields were collected from 265,271 first parity cows. After quality control, 50,765 single-nucleotide polymorphic genotypes were available for analysis. In GWAS for ss-GBLUP (ssGWAS) and Bayes-B (BayesGWAS), the proportion of genetic variance for each 1-Mb genomic window was calculated and used to identify informative genomic regions. Accuracy of the DGV was estimated by a five-fold cross-validation with random clustering. As a measure of accuracy for DGV, we also assessed the correlation between DGV and deregressed-estimated breeding value (DEBV). The bias of DGV for each method was obtained by determining regression coefficients. Results: A total of nine and five significant windows (1 Mb) were identified for MY305 using ssGWAS and BayesGWAS, respectively. Using ssGWAS and BayesGWAS, we also detected multiple significant regions for FY305 (12 and 7) and PY305 (14 and 2), respectively. Both single-step DGV and Bayes DGV also showed somewhat moderate accuracy ranges for MY305 (0.32 to 0.34), FY305 (0.37 to 0.39), and PY305 (0.35 to 0.36) traits, respectively. The mean biases of DGVs determined using the single-step and Bayesian methods were $1.50{\pm}0.21$ and $1.18{\pm}0.26$ for MY305, $1.75{\pm}0.33$ and $1.14{\pm}0.20$ for FY305, and $1.59{\pm}0.20$ and $1.14{\pm}0.15$ for PY305, respectively. Conclusion: From the bias perspective, we believe that genomic selection based on the application of Bayesian approaches would be more suitable than application of ss-GBLUP in Korean Holstein populations.