Key Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction of Ministry of Education & Key Laboratory of Swine Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070, China.
SEGES, Danish Agriculture & Food Council F.m.b.A., Agro Food Park 15, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Genet Sel Evol. 2021 Oct 7;53(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s12711-021-00670-x.
The single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (SSGBLUP) method is a popular approach for genetic evaluation with high-density genotype data. To solve the problem that pedigree and genomic relationship matrices refer to different base populations, a single-step genomic method with metafounders (MF-SSGBLUP) was put forward. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive ability and bias of genomic evaluations obtained with MF-SSGBLUP and standard SSGBLUP. We examined feed conversion ratio (FCR) and average daily gain (ADG) in DanBred Landrace (LL) and Yorkshire (YY) pigs using both univariate and bivariate models, as well as the optimal weighting factors (ω), which represent the proportions of the genetic variance not captured by markers, for ADG and FCR in SSGBLUP and MF-SSGBLUP.
In general, SSGBLUP and MF-SSGBLUP showed similar predictive abilities and bias of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). In the LL population, the predictive ability for ADG reached 0.36 using uni- or bi-variate SSGBLUP or MF-SSGBLUP, while the predictive ability for FCR was highest (0.20) for the bivariate model using MF-SSGBLUP, but differences between analyses were very small. In the YY population, predictive ability for ADG was similar for the four analyses (up to 0.35), while the predictive ability for FCR was highest (0.36) for the uni- and bi-variate MF-SSGBLUP analyses. SSGBLUP and MF-SSGBLUP exhibited nearly the same bias. In general, the bivariate models had lower bias than the univariate models. In the LL population, the optimal ω for ADG was ~ 0.2 in the univariate or bivariate models using SSGBLUP or MF-SSGBLUP, and the optimal ω for FCR was 0.70 and 0.55 for SSGBLUP and MF-SSGBLUP, respectively. In the YY population, the optimal ω ranged from 0.25 to 0. 35 for ADG across the four analyses and from 0.10 to 0.30 for FCR.
Our results indicate that MF-SSGBLUP performed slightly better than SSGBLUP for genomic evaluation. There was little difference in the optimal weighting factors (ω) between SSGBLUP and MF-SSGBLUP. Overall, the bivariate model using MF-SSGBLUP is recommended for single-step genomic evaluation of ADG and FCR in DanBred Landrace and Yorkshire pigs.
单步基因组最佳线性无偏预测(SSGBLUP)方法是一种利用高密度基因型数据进行遗传评估的常用方法。为了解决系谱和基因组关系矩阵指的是不同基础群体的问题,提出了一种带有元数据(MF-SSGBLUP)的单步基因组方法。本研究的目的是比较 MF-SSGBLUP 和标准 SSGBLUP 获得的基因组评估的预测能力和偏差。我们使用单变量和双变量模型检查了丹育长白猪(LL)和约克夏猪(YY)的饲料转化率(FCR)和平均日增重(ADG),以及 SSGBLUP 和 MF-SSGBLUP 中 ADG 和 FCR 的最佳加权因子(ω),ω 代表标记未捕获的遗传方差的比例。
一般来说,SSGBLUP 和 MF-SSGBLUP 显示出相似的基因组估计育种值(GEBV)的预测能力和偏差。在 LL 群体中,使用单变量或双变量 SSGBLUP 或 MF-SSGBLUP,ADG 的预测能力达到 0.36,而 MF-SSGBLUP 中双变量模型的 FCR 预测能力最高(0.20),但分析之间的差异非常小。在 YY 群体中,四种分析的 ADG 预测能力相似(最高可达 0.35),而 FCR 的预测能力在单变量和双变量 MF-SSGBLUP 分析中最高(0.36)。SSGBLUP 和 MF-SSGBLUP 表现出几乎相同的偏差。一般来说,双变量模型的偏差低于单变量模型。在 LL 群体中,SSGBLUP 或 MF-SSGBLUP 中单变量或双变量模型中 ADG 的最佳 ω 值约为 0.2,FCR 的最佳 ω 值分别为 0.70 和 0.55。在 YY 群体中,四种分析中 ADG 的最佳 ω 值范围为 0.25 到 0.35,FCR 的最佳 ω 值范围为 0.10 到 0.30。
我们的结果表明,MF-SSGBLUP 对基因组评估的表现略优于 SSGBLUP。SSGBLUP 和 MF-SSGBLUP 之间的最佳加权因子(ω)差异很小。总体而言,建议使用 MF-SSGBLUP 的双变量模型对丹育长白猪和约克夏猪的 ADG 和 FCR 进行单步基因组评估。