Genotyping marker density and prediction models effects in long-term breeding schemes of cross-pollinated crops

In genomic recurrent selection, the more markers, the better because they buffer the linkage disequilibrium losses caused by recombination over cycles, and consequently, provide higher responses to selection. Reductions of genotyping marker density have been extensively evaluated as potential strategies to reduce the genotyping costs of genomic selection (GS). Low-density marker panels are appealing in GS because they entail lower multicollinearity and computing time and allow more individuals to be genotyped for the same cost. However, statistical models used in GS are usually evaluated with empirical data, using "static" training sets and populations. This may be adequate for making predictions during a breeding program's initial cycles but not for the long-term. Moreover, studies that focus on long selective breeding cycles generally do not consider GS models with the effect of dominance, which is particularly important for breeding outcomes in cross-pollinated crops. Hence, dominance effects are important and unexplored in GS for long-term programs involving allogamous species. To address it, we employed two approaches: analysis of empirical maize datasets and simulations of long-term breeding applying phenotypic and genomic recurrent selection (intrapopulation and reciprocal schemes). In both schemes, we simulated twenty breeding cycles and assessed the effect of marker density reduction on the population mean, the best crosses, additive variance, selective accuracy, and response to selection with models [additive, additive-dominant, general (GCA), and this plus specific combining ability (GCA + SCA)]. Our results indicate that marker reduction based on linkage disequilibrium levels provides useful predictions only within a cycle, as accuracy significantly decreases over cycles. In the long-term, without training set updating, high-marker density provides the best responses to selection. The model to be used depends on the breeding scheme: additive for intrapopulation and additive-dominant or GCA + SCA for reciprocal.

Impact of Marker Pruning Strategies Based on Different Measurements of Marker Distance on Genomic Prediction in Dairy Cattle

Simple Summary

The usefulness of genomic prediction (GP) has been widely proofed by breeding analysis in livestock, plants and aquatic populations. It is well known that ‘marker density’ is a critical factor that affects the accuracy of GP, however, how to properly measure ‘marker density’ in GP is yet to be determined. With population-level whole-genome sequence data or high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data available, this question seems to be answered more convincingly. In this study, we investigated and discussed the impact of four ‘marker density’ measures that reflect genetic or physical distances between SNPs on the accuracy of GP in a Germany Holstein dairy cattle population. Our results showed that the degree of variation of physical distance between adjacent SNPs had significant effects on the accuracy of GP, while the genetic distance between SNPs had no relationship with the accuracy of GP. Therefore, for studies based on high-density SNP data, the default strategy of pruning SNPs based on genetic distance is detrimental to heritability estimation and genomic prediction. The results extended the communities knowledge of ‘marker density’ and provided useful suggestions for the application and research on genome prediction.

Abstract

With the availability of high-density single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data and the development of genotype imputation methods, high-density panel-based genomic prediction (GP) has become possible in livestock breeding. It is generally considered that the genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) accuracy increases with the marker density, while studies have shown that the GEBV accuracy does not increase or even decrease when high-density panels were used. Therefore, in addition to the SNP number, other measurements of ‘marker density’ seem to have impacts on the GEBV accuracy, and exploring the relationship between the GEBV accuracy and the measurements of ‘marker density’ based on high-density SNP or whole-genome sequence data is important for the field of GP. In this study, we constructed different SNP panels with certain SNP numbers (e.g., 1 k) by using the physical distance (PhyD), genetic distance (GenD) and random distance (RanD) between SNPs respectively based on the high-density SNP data of a Germany Holstein dairy cattle population. Therefore, there are three different panels at a certain SNP number level. These panels were used to construct GP models to predict fat percentage, milk yield and somatic cell score. Meanwhile, the mean (d¯) and variance (σd2) of the physical distance between SNPs and the mean (r2¯) and variance (σr22) of the genetic distance between SNPs in each panel were used as marker density-related measurements and their influence on the GEBV accuracy was investigated. At the same SNP number level, the d¯ of all panels is basically the same, but the σd2, r2¯ and σr22 are different. Therefore, we only investigated the effects of σd2, r2¯ and σr22 on the GEBV accuracy. The results showed that at a certain SNP number level, the GEBV accuracy was negatively correlated with σd2, but not with r2¯ and σr22. Compared with GenD and RanD, the σd2 of panels constructed by PhyD is smaller. The low and moderate-density panels (< 50 k) constructed by RanD or GenD have large σd2, which is not conducive to genomic prediction. The GEBV accuracy of the low and moderate-density panels constructed by PhyD is 3.8~34.8% higher than that of the low and moderate-density panels constructed by RanD and GenD. Panels with 20–30 k SNPs constructed by PhyD can achieve the same or slightly higher GEBV accuracy than that of high-density SNP panels for all three traits. In summary, the smaller the variation degree of physical distance between adjacent SNPs, the higher the GEBV accuracy. The low and moderate-density panels construct by physical distance are beneficial to genomic prediction, while pruning high-density SNP data based on genetic distance is detrimental to genomic prediction. The results provide suggestions for the development of SNP panels and the research of genome prediction based on whole-genome sequence data.