A simulation study of a honeybee breeding scheme accounting for polyandry, direct and maternal effects on colony performance

Uncertainty in the mating strategy of honeybees causes bias and unreliability in the estimates of genetic parameters

BACKGROUND

Breeding queens may be mated with drones that are produced by a single drone-producing queen (DPQ), or a group of sister-DPQs, but often only the dam of the DPQ(s) is reported in the pedigree. Furthermore, datasets may include colony phenotypes from DPQs that were open-mated at different locations, and thus to a heterogeneous drone population.

METHODS

Simulation was used to investigate the impact of the mating strategy and its modelling on the estimates of genetic parameters and genetic trends when the DPQs are treated in different ways in the statistical evaluation model. We quantified the bias and standard error of the estimates when breeding queens were mated to one DPQ or a group of DPQs, assuming that this information was known or not. We also investigated four alternative strategies to accommodate the phenotypes of open-mated DPQs in the genetic evaluation: excluding their phenotypes, adding a dummy pseudo-sire in the pedigree, or adding a non-genetic (fixed or random) effect to the statistical evaluation model to account for the origin of the mates.

RESULTS

The most precise estimates of genetic parameters and genetic trends were obtained when breeding queens were mated with drones of single DPQs that are correctly assigned in the pedigree. However, when they were mated with drones from one or a group of DPQs, and this information was not known, erroneous assumptions led to considerable bias in these estimates. Furthermore, genetic variances were considerably overestimated when phenotypes of colonies from open-mated DPQs were adjusted for their mates by adding a dummy pseudo-sire in the pedigree for each subpopulation of open-mating drones. On the contrary, correcting for the heterogeneous drone population by adding a non-genetic effect in the evaluation model produced unbiased estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowing only the dam of the DPQ(s) used in each mating may lead to erroneous assumptions on how DPQs were used and severely bias the estimates of genetic parameters and trends. Thus, we recommend keeping track of DPQs in the pedigree, and not only of the dams of DPQ(s). Records from DPQ colonies with queens open-mated to a heterogeneous drone population can be integrated by adding non-genetic effects to the statistical evaluation model.

Comparison of pooled semen insemination and single colony insemination as sustainable honeybee breeding strategies

Instrumental insemination of honeybees allows for two opposing breeding strategies. In single colony insemination (SCI), all drones to inseminate a queen are taken from one colony. In pooled semen insemination (PSI), sperm of many genetically diverse drones is mixed and queens are fertilized from the resulting drone pool. While SCI allows for maximum pedigree control, proponents of PSI claim to reduce inbreeding and maintain genetic variance. Using stochastic simulation studies, we compared genetic progress and inbreeding rates in small honeybee populations under SCI and PSI. Four different selection criteria were covered: estimated breeding values (EBV), phenotypes, true breeding values (TBV) and random selection. Under EBV-based truncation selection, SCI yielded 9.0% to 44.4% higher genetic gain than PSI, but had vastly increased inbreeding rates. Under phenotypical or TBV selection, the gap between SCI and PSI in terms of genetic progress narrowed. Throughout, PSI yielded lower inbreeding rates than SCI, but the differences were only substantial under EBV truncation selection. As a result, PSI did not appear as a viable breeding strategy owing to its incompatibility with modern methods of genetic evaluation. Instead, SCI is to be preferred but instead of strict truncation selection, strategies to avoid inbreeding need to be installed.

The Potential of Instrumental Insemination for Sustainable Honeybee Breeding

Mating control is crucial in honeybee breeding and commonly guaranteed by bringing virgin queens to isolated mating stations (IMS) for their nuptial flights. However, most breeding programs struggle to provide sufficiently many IMS. Research institutions routinely perform instrumental insemination of honeybees, but its potential to substitute IMS in breeding programs has not been sufficiently studied. We performed stochastic simulations to compare instrumental insemination strategies and mating on IMS in terms of genetic progress and inbreeding development. We focused on the role of paternal generation intervals, which can be shortened to two years with instrumental insemination in comparison to three years when using IMS. After 70 years, instrumental insemination yielded up to 42% higher genetic gain than IMS strategies-particularly with few available mating sites. Inbreeding rates with instrumental insemination and IMS were comparable. When the paternal generation interval in instrumental insemination was stretched to three years, the number of drone producers required for sustainable breeding was reduced substantially. In contrast, when shortening the interval to two years, it yielded the highest generational inbreeding rates (up to 2.28%). Overall, instrumental insemination with drones from a single colony appears as a viable strategy for honeybee breeding and a promising alternative to IMS.

Consequences of incorrect genetic parameter estimates for single-trait and multi-trait genetic evaluations in honeybees

Genetic and residual variances of traits are important input parameters for best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) breeding value estimation. In honeybees, estimates of these variances are often associated with large standard errors, entailing a risk to perform genetic evaluations under wrong premises. The consequences hereof have not been sufficiently studied. In particular, there are no adequate investigations on this topic accounting for multi-trait selection or genetic peculiarities of the honeybee. We performed simulation studies and explored the consequences of selection for honeybee populations with a broad range of true and assumed genetic parameters. We found that in single-trait evaluations, the response to selection was barely compromised by assuming erroneous parameters, so that reductions in genetic progress after 20 years never exceeded 21%. Phenotypic selection appeared inferior to BLUP selection, particularly under low heritabilities. Parameter choices for genetic evaluation had great effects on inbreeding development. By wrongly assuming high heritabilities, inbreeding rates were reduced by up to 74%. When parallel selection was performed for two traits, the right choice of genetic parameters appeared considerably more crucial as several incorrect premises yielded inadvertent negative selection for one of the traits. This phenomenon occurred in multiple constellations in which the selection traits expressed a negative genetic correlation. It was not reflected in the estimated breeding values. Our results indicate that breeding efforts heavily rely on detailed knowledge on genetic parameters, particularly when multi-trait selection is performed. Thus, considerable effort should be invested into precise parameter estimations.

Genetic Diversity and Structure in a Closed Breeding System of Russian Honey Bees

High levels of genetic diversity are critical to the success of breeding programs. Russian honey bees are a selected stock that undergoes breeding in a closed block-based mating system. Given its established history, Russian stock has longitudinal measures of genetic integrity (i.e., genetically based stock identity) and diversity. Assessments using genetic stock identification (GSI) have shown that genetic diversity parameters were assessed across breeding blocks for three generations, spanning 6 yr (2014, 2017, and 2020), showing levels comparable to those when the stock was initially released in 2008. Allelic richness (mean number of alleles) and gene diversity levels were consistent over time and among blocks. Blocks were generally not differentiated from one another within each year. However, the 2020 population was distinct when compared with bees sampled in both 2014 and 2017. Genetic distance relationships supported differentiation of the 2020 population by distinct clustering. The patterns observed here are consistent with historical changes made to the breeding program to increase stringency of the selection criteria.

Influence of model selection and data structure on the estimation of genetic parameters in honeybee populations

Estimating genetic parameters of quantitative traits is a prerequisite for animal breeding. In honeybees, the genetic variance separates into queen and worker effects. However, under data paucity, parameter estimations that account for this peculiarity often yield implausible results. Consequently, simplified models that attribute all genetic contributions to either the queen (queen model) or the workers (worker model) are often used to estimate variance components in honeybees. However, the causes for estimations with the complete model (colony model) to fail and the consequences of simplified models for variance estimates are little understood. We newly developed the necessary theory to compare parameter estimates that were achieved by the colony model with those of the queen and worker models. Furthermore, we performed computer simulations to quantify the influence of model choice, estimation algorithm, true genetic parameters, rates of controlled mating, apiary sizes, and phenotype data completeness on the success of genetic parameter estimations. We found that successful estimations with the colony model were only possible if at least some of the queens mated controlled on mating stations. In that case, estimates were largely unbiased if more than 20% of the colonies had phenotype records. The simplified queen and worker models proved more stable and yielded plausible parameter estimates for almost all settings. Results obtained from these models were unbiased when mating was uncontrolled, but with controlled mating, the simplified models consistently overestimated heritabilities. This study elucidates the requirements for variance component estimation in honeybees and provides the theoretical groundwork for simplified honeybee models.