Comparing Alternative Single-Step GBLUP Approaches and Training Population Designs for Genomic Evaluation of Crossbred Animals

18Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

As crossbreeding is extensively used in some livestock species, we aimed to evaluate the performance of single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) and weighted ssGBLUP (WssGBLUP) methods to predict Genomic Estimated Breeding Values (GEBVs) of crossbred animals. Different training population scenarios were evaluated: (SC1) ssGBLUP based on a single-trait model considering purebred and crossbred animals in a joint training population; (SC2) ssGBLUP based on a multiple-trait model to enable considering phenotypes recorded in purebred and crossbred training animals as different traits; (SC3) WssGBLUP based on a single-trait model considering purebred and crossbred animals jointly in the training population (both populations were used for SNP weights' estimation); (SC4) WssGBLUP based on a single-trait model considering only purebred animals in the training population (crossbred population only used for SNP weights' estimation); (SC5) WssGBLUP based on a single-trait model and the training population characterized by purebred animals (purebred population used for SNP weights' estimation). A complex trait was simulated assuming alternative genetic architectures. Different scaling factors to blend the inverse of the genomic (G−1) and pedigree ((Formula presented.)) relationship matrices were also tested. The predictive performance of each scenario was evaluated based on the validation accuracy and regression coefficient. The genetic correlations across simulated populations in the different scenarios ranged from moderate to high (0.71–0.99). The scenario mimicking a completely polygenic trait ((Formula presented.) 0) yielded the lowest validation accuracy (0.12; for SC3 and SC4). The simulated scenarios assuming 4,500 QTLs affecting the trait and (Formula presented.) resulted in the greatest GEBV accuracies (0.47; for SC1 and SC2). The regression coefficients ranged from 0.28 (for SC3 assuming polygenic effect) to 1.27 (for SC2 considering 4,500 QTLs). In general, SC3 and SC5 resulted in inflated GEBVs, whereas other scenarios yielded deflated GEBVs. The scaling factors used to combine G−1 and (Formula presented.) had a small influence on the validation accuracies, but a greater effect on the regression coefficients. Due to the complexity of multiple-trait models and WssGBLUP analyses, and a similar predictive performance across the methods evaluated, SC1 is recommended for genomic evaluation in crossbred populations with similar genetic structures [moderate-to-high (0.71–0.99) genetic correlations between purebred and crossbred populations].

References Powered by Scopus

Second-generation PLINK: Rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets

7122Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions

4085Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model

1674Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

An Appropriate Genetic Approach for Improving Reproductive Traits in Crossbred Thai–Holstein Cattle under Heat Stress Conditions

20Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Genomic Prediction of Average Daily Gain, Back-Fat Thickness, and Loin Muscle Depth Using Different Genomic Tools in Canadian Swine Populations

18Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Genomic prediction and training set optimization in a structured Mediterranean oat population

14Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Alvarenga, A. B., Veroneze, R., Oliveira, H. R., Marques, D. B. D., Lopes, P. S., Silva, F. F., & Brito, L. F. (2020). Comparing Alternative Single-Step GBLUP Approaches and Training Population Designs for Genomic Evaluation of Crossbred Animals. Frontiers in Genetics, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2020.00263

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 15

65%

Researcher 7

30%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

4%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15

60%

Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Bi... 7

28%

Medicine and Dentistry 2

8%

Computer Science 1

4%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free