Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2020 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5

Comparison of BLUP and Bayesian methods for different sizes of training population in genomic selection

Pages
994–1002
Publication Date
2022-11-06
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Bayes B method gave the highest accuracy for the indirect estimate of breeding value.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to compare the accuracy of pedigree-based and genomic-based breeding value prediction for different training population sizes.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Genomic and pedigree-based breeding values were estimated for partial milk yield (158 days) of Holstein cows (400 individuals) from a private enterprise in the USA.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Bayes B method gave the highest accuracy for the indirect estimate of breeding value.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This study aims to compare the accuracy of pedigree-based and genomic-based breeding value prediction for different training population sizes. In this study, Bayes (A, B, C, Cpi) and GBLUP methods for genomic selection and BLUP method for pedigree-based selection were used. Genomic and pedigree-based breeding values were estimated for partial milk yield (158 days) of Holstein cows (400 individuals) from a private enterprise in the USA. For this aim, populations were created for indirect breeding value estimates as training (322–360) and test (78–40) populations. In animals genotyped with a 54k SNP, the marker file was encoded as –10, 0, and 10 for AA, AB, and BB marker genotypes, respectively. Bayes and GBLUP methods were performed using GenSel 4.55 software. A total of 50,000 iterations were used, with the first 5000 excluded as the burn-in. Pedigree-based breeding values were estimated by REML using MTDFREML software employing an animal model. Correlations between partial milk yield and estimated breeding values were used to assess the predictive ability for methods. Bayes B method gave the highest accuracy for the indirect estimate of breeding value.

🔖

Cite This Article

ABACI, S. H., ÖNDER, H. (2022). Comparison of BLUP and Bayesian methods for different sizes of training population in genomic selection. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 5, 994–1002. https://ajindex.com/articles/614788

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Kızılkaya K. Application of different methods in the estimation of breeding values in dairy cattle. MSc, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey, 1993 (in Turkish with an abstract in English)
  2. Ünalan A. Prediction of genetic parameters related to milk yields of Holstein Friesian population reared in the Ceylanpınar Agricultural State Farm by bayesian and REML methods. PhD, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey, 2002 (in Turkish with an abstract in English)
  3. Mrode RA. Linear Models for the Prediction of Animal Breeding Values. Edinburgh, UK: CAB International; 1996
  4. Oldenbroek K, van der Waaij L. Textbook Animal Breeding: Animal Breeding and Genetics for BSc Students. the Netherlands: Centre for Genetic Resources and Animal Breeding and Genomics Group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, 2014
  5. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001; 157 (4): 1819-1829
  6. Georges M, Nielsen D, Mackinnon M, Mishra A, Okimoto R et al. Mapping quantitative trait loci controlling milk production in dairy cattle by exploiting progeny testing. Genetics 1995; 139 (2): 907-920
  7. Fernando RL, Grossman M. Marker assisted selection using best linear unbiased prediction. Genetics Selection Evolution 1989; 21 (4): 467-477. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-21-4-467 8. Meuwissen THE, Goddard ME. The use of marker haplotypes in animal breeding schemes. Genetics Selection Evolution 1996; 28 (2): 161-176. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-28-2-161 9. Goddard ME, Hayes BJ. Genomic selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 2007; 124 (6): 323-330. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00702.x 10. Neves HH, Carvalheiro R, Queiroz SA. A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population. BMC Genetics 2012; 13 (100): 1-17. doi: 10.1186/1471-2156- 13-100 11. Fan B, Du ZQ, Gorbach DM, Rothschild MF. Development and application of high-density SNP arrays in genomic studies of domestic animals. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2010; 23 (7): 833-847. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2010.r.03 12. Yılmaz O, Öner Y, Karaman E, Cemal İ. Genome wide association studies and genomic selection in livestock. In: 9th National Animal Science Congress; Konya, Turkey; 2015. pp. 394-401 (in Turkish with an abstract in English)
  8. Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AJ, Goddard ME. Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges. Journal of Dairy Science 2009; 92 (2): 433-443. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105- 12-18