We evaluated the performance of GBLUP including dominance genetic effect (GBLUP-D) by estimating variances and predicting genetic merits in a computer simulation and 2 actual traits (T4 and T5) in pigs. In simulation data, GBLUP-D explained more than 50% of dominance genetic variance. Moreover, GBLUP-D yielded estimated total genetic effects over 1.2% more accurate than those yielded by GBLUP. In particular, when the dominance genetic variance was large, the accuracy could be substantially improved by increasing the number of markers. The dominance genetic variances in T4 and T5 accounted for 9.6% and 6.3% of the phenotypic variances, respectively. Estimates of such small dominance genetic variances contributed little to the improvement of the accuracies of estimated total genetic effects. In both simulation and pig data, there were nearly no differences in the estimates of additive genetic effects or their variance between GBLUP-D and GBLUP. Therefore, we conclude GBLUP-D is a feasible approach to improve genetic performance in crossbred populations with large dominance genetic variation and identify mating systems with good combining ability.
References
[1]
Muewissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic effect using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157: 1819–1829.
[2]
Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AL, Goddard ME (2009) Invited review: Genomic selection in daily cattle: progress and challenges. J Dairy Sci 92: 433–443.
McHugh N, Muewissen TH, Cromie AR, Sonesson AK (2011) Use of female information in dairy cattle genomic breeding programs. J Dairy Sci 94: 4109–4118.
[5]
Wiggans GR, VanRaden PM, Cooper T. 2011. The genomic evaluation system in the United States: Pasts, present, future. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 3202–3211.
[6]
VanRaden PM, Van Tassell CP, Wiggans GR, Sonstegard TS, Schnabel RD (2009) Invited review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci 92: 16–24.
[7]
Hayes BJ, Visscher PM, Goddard ME (2009) Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix. Genet Res 91: 47–60.
[8]
Calus MPL (2010) Genomic breeding value prediction: methods and procedures. Animal 4: 157–164.
[9]
Garrick DJ, Taylor JF, Fernando RL (2009) Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses. Genet Sel Evol 41: 55.
[10]
Toro MA, Varona L (2010) A note on mate allocation for dominance handling in genomic selection. Genet Sel Evol 42: 33.
[11]
Su G, Christensen OF, Henryon M, Lund MS (2012) Estimating additive and non-additive genetic variances and prediction genetic merits using genome-wide dense single nucleotide polymorphism markers. PLoS One 7: e45293.
[12]
Vitezica ZG, Varona L, Legarra A (2013) On the additive and dominance variance and covariance of individuals within the genomic selection scope. Genetics: In press.
[13]
Da Y, Wang S (2013) Mixed model methods for genomic prediction and estimation of variance components of additive and dominance effects using SNP markers. J Dairy Sci 96 (E-Suppl (1)) 620.
[14]
Wang C, Prakapenka D, Wang S, Runesha HB, Da Y (2013) GVCBLUP 2.1: Acomputing package for genomic prediction and estimation of variance components for additive and dominance effects using SNP markers. J Dairy Sci 96 (E-Suppl (1)) 620.
[15]
Wittenburg D, Melzer N, Reinsch N (2011) Including non-additive genetic effects in Bayesian methods for the prediction of genetic values based on genome-wide markers. BMC Genet 12: 74.
[16]
Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Essex: Longman Group. 126 p.
[17]
Cleveland MA, Hickey JM, Forni S (2012) A common dataset for genomic analysis of livestock populations. G3 2: 429–435.
[18]
Johnson DL, Thompson R (1995) Restricted maximum likelihood estimation of variance components for univariate animal models using sparse matrix techniques and average information. J Dairy Sci 78: 449–456.
[19]
Sun C, VanRaden PM, O’Connell JR, Weigel KA, Gianola D (2013) Mating programs including genomic relationships and dominance effects. J Dairy Sci: In press.
[20]
Schadt EE, Lamb J, Yang X, Zhu J, Edwards S (2005) An interactive genomics approach to infer causal associations between gene expression and disease. Nat Genet 37: 710–717.
[21]
Evans DM, Marchini J, Morris AP, Cardon LR (2006) Two-stage two-locus models in genome-wide association. PLoS One 2: e157.
[22]
Marchini J, Donnelly P, Cardon LR (2005) Genome-wide strategies for detecting multiple loci that influence complex diseases. Nat Genet 37: 413–417.
[23]
Lee SH, van der Werf JHJ, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME, Visscher PM (2008) Predicting unobserved phenotypes for complex traits from whole-genome SNP data. PLoS Genet 4: e1000231.
[24]
Xu S (2013) Mapping quantitative trait loci by controlling polygenic background effects. Genetics: In press.
[25]
Gianola D, Fernando RL, Stella A (2006) Genomic-assisted prediction of genetic value with semiparametric procedure. Genetics 173: 1761–1776.
[26]
Gonzalez-Recio O, Gianola D, Long N, Weigel KA, Rosa GJM (2008) Nonparametric methods for incorporating genomic information into genetic evaluations: an application to mortality in broilers. Genetics 178: 2305–2313.
[27]
Yao C, Spurlock DM, Armentano LE, Page Jr CD, VandeHarr JM, et al. (2013) Random forests approach for identifying additive and epistatic single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with residual feed intake in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 96: 6716–6729.
