Cargando…

Influence of epistasis on response to genomic selection using complete sequence data

BACKGROUND: The effect of epistasis on response to selection is a highly debated topic. Here, we investigated the impact of epistasis on response to sequence-based selection via genomic best linear prediction (GBLUP) in a regime of strong non-symmetrical epistasis under divergent selection, using re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Forneris, Natalia S., Vitezica, Zulma G., Legarra, Andres, Pérez-Enciso, Miguel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5574158/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28841821
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-017-0340-3
_version_ 1783259782481707008
author Forneris, Natalia S.
Vitezica, Zulma G.
Legarra, Andres
Pérez-Enciso, Miguel
author_facet Forneris, Natalia S.
Vitezica, Zulma G.
Legarra, Andres
Pérez-Enciso, Miguel
author_sort Forneris, Natalia S.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The effect of epistasis on response to selection is a highly debated topic. Here, we investigated the impact of epistasis on response to sequence-based selection via genomic best linear prediction (GBLUP) in a regime of strong non-symmetrical epistasis under divergent selection, using real Drosophila sequence data. We also explored the possible advantage of including epistasis in the evaluation model and/or of knowing the causal mutations. RESULTS: Response to selection was almost exclusively due to changes in allele frequency at a few loci with a large effect. Response was highly asymmetric (about four phenotypic standard deviations higher for upward than downward selection) due to the highly skewed site frequency spectrum. Epistasis accentuated this asymmetry and affected response to selection by modulating the additive genetic variance, which was sustained for longer under upward selection whereas it eroded rapidly under downward selection. Response to selection was quite insensitive to the evaluation model, especially under an additive scenario. Nevertheless, including epistasis in the model when there was none eventually led to lower accuracies as selection proceeded. Accounting for epistasis in the model, if it existed, was beneficial but only in the medium term. There was not much gain in response if causal mutations were known, compared to using sequence data, which is likely due to strong linkage disequilibrium, high heritability and availability of phenotypes on candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Epistatic interactions affect the response to genomic selection by modulating the additive genetic variance used for selection. Epistasis releases additive variance that may increase response to selection compared to a pure additive genetic action. Furthermore, genomic evaluation models and, in particular, GBLUP are robust, i.e. adding complexity to the model did not modify substantially the response (for a given architecture). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12711-017-0340-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5574158
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55741582017-08-30 Influence of epistasis on response to genomic selection using complete sequence data Forneris, Natalia S. Vitezica, Zulma G. Legarra, Andres Pérez-Enciso, Miguel Genet Sel Evol Research Article BACKGROUND: The effect of epistasis on response to selection is a highly debated topic. Here, we investigated the impact of epistasis on response to sequence-based selection via genomic best linear prediction (GBLUP) in a regime of strong non-symmetrical epistasis under divergent selection, using real Drosophila sequence data. We also explored the possible advantage of including epistasis in the evaluation model and/or of knowing the causal mutations. RESULTS: Response to selection was almost exclusively due to changes in allele frequency at a few loci with a large effect. Response was highly asymmetric (about four phenotypic standard deviations higher for upward than downward selection) due to the highly skewed site frequency spectrum. Epistasis accentuated this asymmetry and affected response to selection by modulating the additive genetic variance, which was sustained for longer under upward selection whereas it eroded rapidly under downward selection. Response to selection was quite insensitive to the evaluation model, especially under an additive scenario. Nevertheless, including epistasis in the model when there was none eventually led to lower accuracies as selection proceeded. Accounting for epistasis in the model, if it existed, was beneficial but only in the medium term. There was not much gain in response if causal mutations were known, compared to using sequence data, which is likely due to strong linkage disequilibrium, high heritability and availability of phenotypes on candidates. CONCLUSIONS: Epistatic interactions affect the response to genomic selection by modulating the additive genetic variance used for selection. Epistasis releases additive variance that may increase response to selection compared to a pure additive genetic action. Furthermore, genomic evaluation models and, in particular, GBLUP are robust, i.e. adding complexity to the model did not modify substantially the response (for a given architecture). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12711-017-0340-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-08-25 /pmc/articles/PMC5574158/ /pubmed/28841821 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-017-0340-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Forneris, Natalia S.
Vitezica, Zulma G.
Legarra, Andres
Pérez-Enciso, Miguel
Influence of epistasis on response to genomic selection using complete sequence data
title Influence of epistasis on response to genomic selection using complete sequence data
title_full Influence of epistasis on response to genomic selection using complete sequence data
title_fullStr Influence of epistasis on response to genomic selection using complete sequence data
title_full_unstemmed Influence of epistasis on response to genomic selection using complete sequence data
title_short Influence of epistasis on response to genomic selection using complete sequence data
title_sort influence of epistasis on response to genomic selection using complete sequence data
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5574158/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28841821
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-017-0340-3
work_keys_str_mv AT fornerisnatalias influenceofepistasisonresponsetogenomicselectionusingcompletesequencedata
AT vitezicazulmag influenceofepistasisonresponsetogenomicselectionusingcompletesequencedata
AT legarraandres influenceofepistasisonresponsetogenomicselectionusingcompletesequencedata
AT perezencisomiguel influenceofepistasisonresponsetogenomicselectionusingcompletesequencedata