Genotyping and phenotyping strategies for genetic improvement of meat quality and carcass composition in swine

Background

Meat quality and composition traits have become valuable in modern pork production; however, genetic improvement has been slow due to high phenotyping costs. Combining genomic information with multi-trait indirect selection based on cheaper indicator traits is an alternative for continued cost-effective genetic improvement.

Methods

Data from an ongoing breeding program were used in this study. Phenotypic and genomic information was collected on three-way crossbred and purebred Duroc animals belonging to 28 half-sib families. We applied different methods to assess the value of using purebred and crossbred information (both genomic and phenotypic) to predict expensive-to-record traits measured on crossbred individuals. Estimation of multi-trait variance components set the basis for comparing the different scenarios, together with a fourfold cross-validation approach to validate the phenotyping schemes under four genotyping strategies.

Results

The benefit of including genomic information for multi-trait prediction depended on the breeding goal trait, the indicator traits included, and the source of genomic information. While some traits benefitted significantly from genotyping crossbreds (e.g., loin intramuscular fat content, backfat depth, and belly weight), multi-trait prediction was advantageous for some traits even in the absence of genomic information (e.g., loin muscle weight, subjective color, and subjective firmness).

Conclusions

Our results show the value of using different sources of phenotypic and genomic information. For most of the traits studied, including crossbred genomic information was more beneficial than performing multi-trait prediction. Thus, we recommend including crossbred individuals in the reference population when these are phenotyped for the breeding objective.

Review: optimizing genomic selection for crossbred performance by model improvement and data collection

Breeding programs aiming to improve the performance of crossbreds may benefit from genomic prediction of crossbred (CB) performance for purebred (PB) selection candidates. In this review, we compared genomic prediction strategies that differed in 1) the genomic prediction model used or 2) the data used in the reference population. We found 27 unique studies, two of which used deterministic simulation, 11 used stochastic simulation, and 14 real data. Differences in accuracy and response to selection between strategies depended on i) the value of the purebred crossbred genetic correlation (rpc), ii) the genetic distance between the parental lines, iii) the size of PB and CB reference populations, and iv) the relatedness of these reference populations to the selection candidates. In studies where a PB reference population was used, the use of a dominance model yielded accuracies that were equal to or higher than those of additive models. When rpc was lower than ~0.8, and was caused mainly by G × E, it was beneficial to create a reference population of PB animals that are tested in a CB environment. In general, the benefit of collecting CB information increased with decreasing rpc. For a given rpc, the benefit of collecting CB information increased with increasing size of the reference populations. Collecting CB information was not beneficial when rpc was higher than ~0.9, especially when the reference populations were small. Collecting only phenotypes of CB animals may slightly improve accuracy and response to selection, but requires that the pedigree is known. It is, therefore, advisable to genotype these CB animals as well. Finally, considering the breed-origin of alleles allows for modeling breed-specific effects in the CB, but this did not always lead to higher accuracies. Our review shows that the differences in accuracy and response to selection between strategies depend on several factors. One of the most important factors is rpc, and we, therefore, recommend to obtain accurate estimates of rpc of all breeding goal traits. Furthermore, knowledge about the importance of components of rpc (i.e., dominance, epistasis, and G × E) can help breeders to decide which model to use, and whether to collect data on animals in a CB environment. Future research should focus on the development of a tool that predicts accuracy and response to selection from scenario specific parameters.

Predicting the purebred-crossbred genetic correlation from the genetic variance components in the parental lines

Background

The genetic correlation between purebred and crossbred performance (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc) is an important parameter in pig and poultry breeding, because response to selection in crossbred performance depends on the value of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc when selection is based on purebred (PB) performance. The value of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc can be substantially lower than 1, which is partly due to differences in allele frequencies between parental lines when non-additive genetic effects are present. This relationship between \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc and parental allele frequencies suggests that \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc can be expressed as a function of genetic parameters for the trait in the parental lines. In this study, we derived expressions for \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc based on genetic variances within, and the genetic covariance between parental lines. It is important to note that the variance components used in our expressions are not the components that are typically estimated in empirical data. The expressions were derived for a genetic model with additive and dominance effects (D), and additive and epistatic additive-by-additive effects (E_AA). We validated our expressions using simulations of purebred parental lines and their crosses, where the parental lines were either selected or not. Finally, using these simulations, we investigated the value of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc for genetic models with both dominance and epistasis or with other types of epistasis, for which expressions could not be derived.

Results

Our simulations show that when non-additive effects are present, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc decreases with increasing differences in allele frequencies between the parental lines. Genetic models that involve dominance result in lower values of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc than genetic models that involve epistasis only. Using information of parental lines only, our expressions provide exact estimates of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc for models D and E_AA, and accurate upper and lower bounds of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc for two other genetic models.

Conclusion

This work lays the foundation to enable estimation of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc from information collected in PB parental lines only.

Validation of genomic predictions for body weight in broilers using crossbred information and considering breed-of-origin of alleles

Background

Pig and poultry breeding programs aim at improving crossbred (CB) performance. Selection response may be suboptimal if only purebred (PB) performance is used to compute genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) because the genetic correlation between PB and CB performance (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc) is often lower than 1. Thus, it may be beneficial to use information on both PB and CB performance. In addition, the accuracy of GEBV of PB animals for CB performance may improve when the breed-of-origin of alleles (BOA) is considered in the genomic relationship matrix (GRM). Thus, our aim was to compare scenarios where GEBV are computed and validated by using (1) either CB offspring averages or individual CB records for validation, (2) either a PB or CB reference population, and (3) a GRM that either accounts for or ignores BOA in the CB individuals. For this purpose, we used data on body weight measured at around 7 (BW7) or 35 (BW35) days in PB and CB broiler chickens and evaluated the accuracy of GEBV based on the correlation GEBV with phenotypes in the validation population (validation correlation).

Results

With validation on CB offspring averages, the validation correlation of GEBV of PB animals for CB performance was lower with a CB reference population than with a PB reference population for BW35 (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc = 0.96), and about equal for BW7 (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc = 0.80) when BOA was ignored. However, with validation on individual CB records, the validation correlation was higher with a CB reference population for both traits. The use of a GRM that took BOA into account increased the validation correlation for BW7 but reduced it for BW35.

Conclusions

We argue that the benefit of using a CB reference population for genomic prediction of PB animals for CB performance should be assessed either by validation on CB offspring averages, or by validation on individual CB records while using a GRM that accounts for BOA in the CB individuals. With this recommendation in mind, our results show that the accuracy of GEBV of PB animals for CB performance was equal to or higher with a CB reference population than with a PB reference population for a trait with an \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc of 0.8, but lower for a trait with an \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc of 0.96. In addition, taking BOA into account was beneficial for a trait with an \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc of 0.8 but not for a trait with an \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc of 0.96.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12711-019-0481-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Estimating the purebred-crossbred genetic correlation of body weight in broiler chickens with pedigree or genomic relationships

Background

In pig and poultry breeding programs, the breeding goal is to improve crossbred (CB) performance, whereas selection in the purebred (PB) lines is often based on PB performance. Thus, response to selection may be suboptimal, because the genetic correlation between PB and CB performance (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc) is generally lower than 1. Accurate estimates of the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc are needed, so that breeders can decide if they should collect data from CB animals. \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc can be estimated either from pedigree or genomic relationships, which may produce different results. With genomic relationships, the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc estimate could be improved when relationships between purebred and crossbred animals are based only on the alleles that originate from the PB line of interest. This work presents the first comparison of estimated \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc and variance components of body weight in broilers, using pedigree-based or genotype-based models, where the breed-of-origin of alleles was either ignored or considered. We used genotypes and body weight measurements of PB and CB animals that have a common sire line.

Results

Our results showed that the \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc estimates depended on the relationship matrix used. Estimates were 5 to 25% larger with genotype-based models than with pedigree-based models. Moreover, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc estimates were similar (max. 7% difference) regardless of whether the model considered breed-of-origin of alleles or not. Standard errors of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc estimates were smaller with genotype-based than with pedigree-based methods, and smaller with models that ignored breed-of-origin than with models that considered breed-of-origin.

Conclusions

We conclude that genotype-based models can be useful for estimating \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc, even when the PB and CB animals that have phenotypes are closely related. Considering breed-of-origin of alleles did not yield different estimates of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc, probably because the parental breeds of the CB animals were distantly related.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12711-019-0447-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.