Display options
Cite
Plieschke L, Edel C, Pimentel EC, et al. Systematic genotyping of groups of cows to improve genomic estimated breeding values of selection candidates. Genet Sel Evol. 2016;48(1):73doi: 10.1186/s12711-016-0250-9.
Plieschke, L., Edel, C., Pimentel, E. C., Emmerling, R., Bennewitz, J., & Götz, K. U. (2016). Systematic genotyping of groups of cows to improve genomic estimated breeding values of selection candidates. Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 48(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-016-0250-9
Plieschke, Laura, et al. "Systematic genotyping of groups of cows to improve genomic estimated breeding values of selection candidates." Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE vol. 48,1 (2016): 73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-016-0250-9
Plieschke L, Edel C, Pimentel EC, Emmerling R, Bennewitz J, Götz KU. Systematic genotyping of groups of cows to improve genomic estimated breeding values of selection candidates. Genet Sel Evol. 2016 Sep 28;48(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s12711-016-0250-9. PMID: 27677439; PMCID: PMC5039940.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Genet Sel Evol. 2016 Sep 28;48(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s12711-016-0250-9.

Systematic genotyping of groups of cows to improve genomic estimated breeding values of selection candidates.

Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE

Laura Plieschke, Christian Edel, Eduardo C G Pimentel, Reiner Emmerling, Jörn Bennewitz, Kay-Uwe Götz

Affiliations

  1. Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture, Institute of Animal Breeding, Prof.-Dürrwaechter-Platz 1, 85586, Poing-Grub, Germany. [email protected].
  2. Bavarian State Research Center for Agriculture, Institute of Animal Breeding, Prof.-Dürrwaechter-Platz 1, 85586, Poing-Grub, Germany.
  3. Institute of Animal Science, University Hohenheim, Garbenstraße 17, 70599, Stuttgart, Germany.

PMID: 27677439 PMCID: PMC5039940 DOI: 10.1186/s12711-016-0250-9

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Extending the reference set for genomic predictions in dairy cattle by adding large numbers of cows with genotypes and phenotypes has been proposed as a means to increase reliability of selection decisions for candidates.

METHODS: In this study, we explored the potential of increasing the reliability of breeding values of young selection candidates by genotyping a fixed number of first-crop daughters of each sire from one or two generations in a balanced and regular system of genotyping. Using stochastic simulation, we developed a basic population scenario that mimics the situation in dual-purpose Fleckvieh cattle with respect to important key parameters. Starting with a reference set consisting of only genotyped bulls, we extended this reference set by including increasing numbers of daughter genotypes and phenotypes. We studied the effects on model-derived reliabilities, validation reliabilities and unbiasedness of predicted values for selection candidates. We also illustrate and discuss the effects of a selected sample and an unbalanced sampling of daughters. Furthermore, we quantified the role of selection with respect to the influence on validation reliabilities and contrasted these to model-derived reliabilities.

RESULTS: In the most extended design, with 200 daughters per sire genotyped from two generations, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) effects were estimated from a reference set of 420,000 cows and 4200 bulls. For this design, the validation reliabilities for candidates reached 80 % or more, thereby exceeding the reliabilities that were achieved in traditional progeny-testing designs for a trait with moderate to high heritability. We demonstrate that even a moderate number of 25 genotyped daughters per sire will lead to considerable improvement in the reliability of predicted breeding values for selection candidates. Our results illustrate that the strategy applied to sample females for genotyping has a large impact on the benefits that can be achieved.

References

  1. Animal. 2012 Jun;6(6):880-6 - PubMed
  2. J Dairy Sci. 2008 Nov;91(11):4414-23 - PubMed
  3. Animal. 2012 Aug;6(8):1216-24 - PubMed
  4. Bioinformatics. 2009 Mar 1;25(5):680-1 - PubMed
  5. J Dairy Sci. 2013 Oct;96(10):6703-15 - PubMed
  6. J Dairy Sci. 1998 Oct;81(10):2723-8 - PubMed
  7. J Dairy Sci. 2009 Feb;92(2):433-43 - PubMed
  8. J Dairy Sci. 2014 Sep;97(9):5822-32 - PubMed
  9. Animal. 2007 Feb;1(1):21-8 - PubMed
  10. J Dairy Sci. 2016 Mar;99(3):1999-2004 - PubMed
  11. Genetics. 2010 Jul;185(3):1021-31 - PubMed
  12. Genet Sel Evol. 2013 Feb 13;45:3 - PubMed
  13. J Dairy Sci. 2011 Feb;94(2):1011-20 - PubMed
  14. Genetica. 2009 Jun;136(2):245-57 - PubMed
  15. Genet Sel Evol. 2015 Aug 14;47:65 - PubMed
  16. Genet Sel Evol. 2011 Aug 18;43:30 - PubMed
  17. J Dairy Sci. 2015 Apr;98(4):2785-8 - PubMed
  18. J Dairy Sci. 2011 Dec;94(12):6188-93 - PubMed
  19. J Dairy Sci. 2003 Oct;86(10):3386-93 - PubMed
  20. Animal. 2015 Feb;9(2):191-207 - PubMed
  21. Animal. 2016 Jun;10 (6):1061-6 - PubMed
  22. Genet Sel Evol. 2012 Dec 27;44:40 - PubMed
  23. J Dairy Sci. 2014 Sep;97(9):5833-50 - PubMed
  24. Genetics. 2001 Apr;157(4):1819-29 - PubMed
  25. PLoS One. 2008;3(10):e3395 - PubMed
  26. Genet Res (Camb). 2011 Oct;93(5):357-66 - PubMed
  27. Animal. 2013 Feb;7(2):183-91 - PubMed
  28. J Dairy Sci. 2014;97(1):487-96 - PubMed
  29. J Dairy Sci. 1991 Aug;74(8):2737-46 - PubMed
  30. Genet Sel Evol. 2012 Feb 09;44:4 - PubMed
  31. Animal. 2016 Jun;10 (6):1067-75 - PubMed
  32. Genet Sel Evol. 2011 Dec 12;43:43 - PubMed

Publication Types