Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs

Ole Fredslund Christensen, Per Madsen, Bjarne Nielsen, Tage Ostersen, Guohai Su

animal · 2012 · 307 citations · 17 references

DOIFull text

Open access

Concepts

TL;DR

Genetic evaluation using phenotypes, pedigree, and markers can be implemented with a recently developed single‑step method. The study compares breeding‑value prediction accuracies for daily gain and feed‑conversion ratio in Danish Duroc pigs across single‑step, pedigree‑based, and GBLUP methods. They evaluate a single‑step method that adjusts the genomic relationship matrix to match the pedigree matrix, comparing it with other single‑step, pedigree‑based, and GBLUP approaches in both genotyped and non‑genotyped animals and in univariate and bivariate models. Marker‑based methods, including the adjusted single‑step approach, yield more accurate breeding‑value predictions for both genotyped and non‑genotyped pigs, with the adjusted single‑step method outperforming the original and bivariate analyses further improving accuracy and reducing prediction inflation for feed‑conversion ratio. It will be nice.

Abstract

Genetic evaluation based on information from phenotypes, pedigree and markers can be implemented using a recently developed single-step method. In this paper we compare accuracies of predicted breeding values for daily gain and feed conversion ratio (FCR) in Danish Duroc pigs obtained from different versions of single-step methods, the traditional pedigree-based method and the genomic BLUP (GBLUP) method. In particular, we present a single-step method with an adjustment of the genomic relationship matrix so that it is compatible to the pedigree-based relationship matrix. Comparisons are made for both genotyped and non-genotyped animals and univariate and bivariate models. It will be nice. The results show that the three methods with marker information (two single-step methods and GBLUP) produce more accurate predictions of genotyped animals than the pedigree-based method. In addition, single-step methods provide more accurate predictions for non-genotyped animals. The results also show that the single-step method with adjusted genomic relationship matrix produce more accurate predictions than the original single-step method. Finally, the results for the bivariate analyses show a somewhat improved accuracy and reduced inflation of predictions for FCR for the two single-step methods compared with the univariate analyses. The conclusions are: first, the methods with marker information improve prediction compared with the pedigree-based method; second, a single-step method, contrary to GBLUP, provides improved predictions for all animals compared to the pedigree-based method; and third, a single-step method should be used with an adjustment of the genomic relationship matrix.

References

17