1
|
Jiang J, Shen B, O’Connell JR, VanRaden PM, Cole JB, Ma L. Dissection of additive, dominance, and imprinting effects for production and reproduction traits in Holstein cattle. BMC Genomics 2017; 18:425. [PMID: 28558656 PMCID: PMC5450346 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-017-3821-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2017] [Accepted: 05/25/2017] [Indexed: 01/09/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Although genome-wide association and genomic selection studies have primarily focused on additive effects, dominance and imprinting effects play an important role in mammalian biology and development. The degree to which these non-additive genetic effects contribute to phenotypic variation and whether QTL acting in a non-additive manner can be detected in genetic association studies remain controversial. RESULTS To empirically answer these questions, we analyzed a large cattle dataset that consisted of 42,701 genotyped Holstein cows with genotyped parents and phenotypic records for eight production and reproduction traits. SNP genotypes were phased in pedigree to determine the parent-of-origin of alleles, and a three-component GREML was applied to obtain variance decomposition for additive, dominance, and imprinting effects. The results showed a significant non-zero contribution from dominance to production traits but not to reproduction traits. Imprinting effects significantly contributed to both production and reproduction traits. Interestingly, imprinting effects contributed more to reproduction traits than to production traits. Using GWAS and imputation-based fine-mapping analyses, we identified and validated a dominance association signal with milk yield near RUNX2, a candidate gene that has been associated with milk production in mice. When adding non-additive effects into the prediction models, however, we observed little or no increase in prediction accuracy for the eight traits analyzed. CONCLUSIONS Collectively, our results suggested that non-additive effects contributed a non-negligible amount (more for reproduction traits) to the total genetic variance of complex traits in cattle, and detection of QTLs with non-additive effect is possible in GWAS using a large dataset.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jicai Jiang
- Department of Animal and Avian Sciences, University of Maryland, 2123 Animal Science Building, College Park, MD 20742 USA
| | - Botong Shen
- Department of Animal and Avian Sciences, University of Maryland, 2123 Animal Science Building, College Park, MD 20742 USA
| | | | - Paul M. VanRaden
- Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory, USDA, Building 5, Beltsville, MD 20705 USA
| | - John B. Cole
- Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory, USDA, Building 5, Beltsville, MD 20705 USA
| | - Li Ma
- Department of Animal and Avian Sciences, University of Maryland, 2123 Animal Science Building, College Park, MD 20742 USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Li Y, Hawken R, Sapp R, George A, Lehnert S, Henshall J, Reverter A. Evaluation of non-additive genetic variation in feed-related traits of broiler chickens. Poult Sci 2017; 96:754-763. [DOI: 10.3382/ps/pew333] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2016] [Accepted: 08/11/2016] [Indexed: 12/29/2022] Open
|
3
|
Esfandyari H, Bijma P, Henryon M, Christensen OF, Sørensen AC. Genomic prediction of crossbred performance based on purebred Landrace and Yorkshire data using a dominance model. Genet Sel Evol 2016; 48:40. [PMID: 27276993 PMCID: PMC4899891 DOI: 10.1186/s12711-016-0220-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/27/2015] [Accepted: 05/26/2016] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background In pig breeding, selection is usually carried out in purebred populations, although the final goal is to improve crossbred performance. Genomic selection can be used to select purebred parental lines for crossbred performance. Dominance is the likely genetic basis of heterosis and explicitly including dominance in the genomic selection model may be an advantage when selecting purebreds for crossbred performance. Our objectives were two-fold: (1) to compare the predictive ability of genomic prediction models with additive or additive plus dominance effects, when the validation criterion is crossbred performance; and (2) to compare the use of two pure line reference populations to a single combined reference population. Methods We used data on litter size in the first parity from two pure pig lines (Landrace and Yorkshire) and their reciprocal crosses. Training was performed (1) separately on pure Landrace (2085) and Yorkshire (2145) sows and (2) the two combined pure lines (4230), which were genotyped for 38 k single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Prediction accuracy was measured as the correlation between genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) of pure line boars and mean corrected crossbred-progeny performance, divided by the average accuracy of mean-progeny performance. We evaluated a model with additive effects only (MA) and a model with both additive and dominance effects (MAD). Two types of GEBV were computed: GEBV for purebred performance (GEBV) based on either the MA or MAD models, and GEBV for crossbred performance (GEBV-C) based on the MAD. GEBV-C were calculated based on SNP allele frequencies of genotyped animals in the opposite line. Results Compared to MA, MAD improved prediction accuracy for both lines. For MAD, GEBV-C improved prediction accuracy compared to GEBV. For Landrace (Yorkshire) boars, prediction accuracies were equal to 0.11 (0.32) for GEBV based on MA, and 0.13 (0.34) and 0.14 (0.36) for GEBV and GEBV-C based on MAD, respectively. Combining animals from both lines into a single reference population yielded higher accuracies than training on each pure line separately. In conclusion, the use of a dominance model increased the accuracy of genomic predictions of crossbred performance based on purebred data. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12711-016-0220-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hadi Esfandyari
- Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, Tjele, 8830, Denmark. .,Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
| | - Piter Bijma
- Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
| | - Mark Henryon
- Danish Pig Research Centre, Seges, Axeltorv 3, 1609, Copenhagen V, Denmark.,School of Animal Biology, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia
| | - Ole Fredslund Christensen
- Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, Tjele, 8830, Denmark
| | - Anders Christian Sørensen
- Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, Tjele, 8830, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Genomic-polygenic and polygenic evaluations for milk yield and fat percentage using random regression models with Legendre polynomials in a Thai multibreed dairy population. Livest Sci 2016. [DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2016.04.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
|
5
|
de Almeida Filho JE, Guimarães JFR, E Silva FF, de Resende MDV, Muñoz P, Kirst M, Resende MFR. The contribution of dominance to phenotype prediction in a pine breeding and simulated population. Heredity (Edinb) 2016; 117:33-41. [PMID: 27118156 PMCID: PMC4901355 DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2016.23] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2015] [Revised: 12/07/2015] [Accepted: 03/04/2016] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
Pedigrees and dense marker panels have been used to predict the genetic merit of individuals in plant and animal breeding, accounting primarily for the contribution of additive effects. However, nonadditive effects may also affect trait variation in many breeding systems, particularly when specific combining ability is explored. Here we used models with different priors, and including additive-only and additive plus dominance effects, to predict polygenic (height) and oligogenic (fusiform rust resistance) traits in a structured breeding population of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). Models were largely similar in predictive ability, and the inclusion of dominance only improved modestly the predictions for tree height. Next, we simulated a genetically similar population to assess the ability of predicting polygenic and oligogenic traits controlled by different levels of dominance. The simulation showed an overall decrease in the accuracy of total genomic predictions as dominance increases, regardless of the method used for prediction. Thus, dominance effects may not be accounted for as effectively in prediction models compared with traits controlled by additive alleles only. When the ratio of dominance to total phenotypic variance reached 0.2, the additive-dominance prediction models were significantly better than the additive-only models. However, in the prediction of the subsequent progeny population, this accuracy increase was only observed for the oligogenic trait.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J E de Almeida Filho
- School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.,Graduate Program in Genetics and Improvement, Federal University of Viçosa, Avenida PH Rolfs S/N, Viçosa, Brazil.,Department of Zootecnia, Federal University of Viçosa, Avenida PH Rolfs S/N, Viçosa, Brazil
| | - J F R Guimarães
- School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.,Graduate Program in Genetics and Improvement, Federal University of Viçosa, Avenida PH Rolfs S/N, Viçosa, Brazil.,Department of Zootecnia, Federal University of Viçosa, Avenida PH Rolfs S/N, Viçosa, Brazil
| | - F F E Silva
- Department of Zootecnia, Federal University of Viçosa, Avenida PH Rolfs S/N, Viçosa, Brazil
| | - M D V de Resende
- EMBRAPA Florestas/Department of Statistics, Federal University of Viçosa, Avenida PH Rolfs S/N, Viçosa, Brazil
| | - P Muñoz
- Agronomy Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | - M Kirst
- University of Florida Genetics Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.,School of Forest Resources and Conservation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Aliloo H, Pryce JE, González-Recio O, Cocks BG, Hayes BJ. Accounting for dominance to improve genomic evaluations of dairy cows for fertility and milk production traits. Genet Sel Evol 2016; 48:8. [PMID: 26830030 PMCID: PMC4736671 DOI: 10.1186/s12711-016-0186-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2015] [Accepted: 01/14/2016] [Indexed: 01/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Dominance effects may contribute to genetic variation of complex traits in dairy cattle, especially for traits closely related to fitness such as fertility. However, traditional genetic evaluations generally ignore dominance effects and consider additive genetic effects only. Availability of dense single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) panels provides the opportunity to investigate the role of dominance in quantitative variation of complex traits at both the SNP and animal levels. Including dominance effects in the genomic evaluation of animals could also help to increase the accuracy of prediction of future phenotypes. In this study, we estimated additive and dominance variance components for fertility and milk production traits of genotyped Holstein and Jersey cows in Australia. The predictive abilities of a model that accounts for additive effects only (additive), and a model that accounts for both additive and dominance effects (additive + dominance) were compared in a fivefold cross-validation. Results Estimates of the proportion of dominance variation relative to phenotypic variation that is captured by SNPs, for production traits, were up to 3.8 and 7.1 % in Holstein and Jersey cows, respectively, whereas, for fertility, they were equal to 1.2 % in Holstein and very close to zero in Jersey cows. We found that including dominance in the model was not consistently advantageous. Based on maximum likelihood ratio tests, the additive + dominance model fitted the data better than the additive model, for milk, fat and protein yields in both breeds. However, regarding the prediction of phenotypes assessed with fivefold cross-validation, including dominance effects in the model improved accuracy only for fat yield in Holstein cows. Regression coefficients of phenotypes on genetic values and mean squared errors of predictions showed that the predictive ability of the additive + dominance model was superior to that of the additive model for some of the traits. Conclusions In both breeds, dominance effects were significant (P < 0.01) for all milk production traits but not for fertility. Accuracy of prediction of phenotypes was slightly increased by including dominance effects in the genomic evaluation model. Thus, it can help to better identify highly performing individuals and be useful for culling decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hassan Aliloo
- Biosciences Research Division, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, AgriBio, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. .,School of Applied Systems Biology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. .,Dairy Futures Cooperative Research Centre (CRC), AgriBio, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia.
| | - Jennie E Pryce
- Biosciences Research Division, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, AgriBio, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. .,School of Applied Systems Biology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. .,Dairy Futures Cooperative Research Centre (CRC), AgriBio, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia.
| | - Oscar González-Recio
- Dairy Futures Cooperative Research Centre (CRC), AgriBio, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. .,Department of Animal Breeding, INIA, Ctra La Coruña, km 7.5, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
| | - Benjamin G Cocks
- Biosciences Research Division, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, AgriBio, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. .,School of Applied Systems Biology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. .,Dairy Futures Cooperative Research Centre (CRC), AgriBio, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia.
| | - Ben J Hayes
- Biosciences Research Division, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, AgriBio, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. .,School of Applied Systems Biology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. .,Dairy Futures Cooperative Research Centre (CRC), AgriBio, 5 Ring Road, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Lopes M, Bastiaansen J, Janss L, Knol E, Bovenhuis H. Genomic prediction of growth in pigs based on a model including additive and dominance effects. J Anim Breed Genet 2015; 133:180-6. [DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12195] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2015] [Accepted: 10/20/2015] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- M.S. Lopes
- Topigs Norsvin Research Center; Beuningen the Netherlands
- Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre; Wageningen University; Wageningen the Netherlands
| | - J.W.M. Bastiaansen
- Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre; Wageningen University; Wageningen the Netherlands
| | - L. Janss
- Centre for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics; Aarhus University; Tjele Denmark
| | - E.F. Knol
- Topigs Norsvin Research Center; Beuningen the Netherlands
| | - H. Bovenhuis
- Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre; Wageningen University; Wageningen the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|