Cargando…

Pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships

BACKGROUND: We tested the premise that optimum-contribution selection with pedigree relationships to control inbreeding (POCS) realises at least as much true genetic gain as optimum-contribution selection with genomic relationships (GOCS) at the same rate of true inbreeding. METHODS: We used stochas...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Henryon, Mark, Liu, Huiming, Berg, Peer, Su, Guosheng, Nielsen, Hanne Marie, Gebregiwergis, Gebreyohans T., Sørensen, A. Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6615244/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31286868
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-019-0475-5
_version_ 1783433330384961536
author Henryon, Mark
Liu, Huiming
Berg, Peer
Su, Guosheng
Nielsen, Hanne Marie
Gebregiwergis, Gebreyohans T.
Sørensen, A. Christian
author_facet Henryon, Mark
Liu, Huiming
Berg, Peer
Su, Guosheng
Nielsen, Hanne Marie
Gebregiwergis, Gebreyohans T.
Sørensen, A. Christian
author_sort Henryon, Mark
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: We tested the premise that optimum-contribution selection with pedigree relationships to control inbreeding (POCS) realises at least as much true genetic gain as optimum-contribution selection with genomic relationships (GOCS) at the same rate of true inbreeding. METHODS: We used stochastic simulation to estimate rates of true genetic gain realised by POCS and GOCS at a 0.01 rate of true inbreeding in three breeding schemes with best linear unbiased predictions of breeding values based on pedigree (PBLUP) and genomic (GBLUP) information. The three breeding schemes differed in number of matings and litter size. Selection was for a single trait with a heritability of 0.2. The trait was controlled by 7702 biallelic quantitative-trait loci (QTL) that were distributed across a 30-M genome. The genome contained 54,218 biallelic markers that were used in GOCS and GBLUP. A total of 6012 identity-by-descent loci were placed across the genome in base populations. Unique alleles at these loci were used to calculate rates of true inbreeding. Breeding schemes were run for 10 discrete generations. Selection candidates were genotyped and phenotyped before selection. RESULTS: POCS realised more true genetic gain than GOCS at a 0.01 rate of true inbreeding in all combinations of breeding scheme and prediction method. POCS realised 14 to 33% more true genetic gain than GOCS with PBLUP in the three breeding schemes. It realised 1.5 to 5.7% more true genetic gain than GOCS with GBLUP. CONCLUSIONS: POCS realised more true genetic gain than GOCS because it managed expected genetic drift without restricting selection at QTL. By contrast, GOCS penalised changes in allele frequencies at markers that were generated by genetic drift and selection. Because these marker alleles were in linkage disequilibrium with QTL alleles, GOCS restricted changes in allele frequencies at QTL. This provides little incentive to use GOCS and highlights that we have more to learn before we can control inbreeding using genomic relationships in selective-breeding schemes. Until we can do so, POCS remains a worthy method of optimum-contribution selection because it realises more true genetic gain than GOCS at the same rate of true inbreeding.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6615244
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66152442019-07-18 Pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships Henryon, Mark Liu, Huiming Berg, Peer Su, Guosheng Nielsen, Hanne Marie Gebregiwergis, Gebreyohans T. Sørensen, A. Christian Genet Sel Evol Research Article BACKGROUND: We tested the premise that optimum-contribution selection with pedigree relationships to control inbreeding (POCS) realises at least as much true genetic gain as optimum-contribution selection with genomic relationships (GOCS) at the same rate of true inbreeding. METHODS: We used stochastic simulation to estimate rates of true genetic gain realised by POCS and GOCS at a 0.01 rate of true inbreeding in three breeding schemes with best linear unbiased predictions of breeding values based on pedigree (PBLUP) and genomic (GBLUP) information. The three breeding schemes differed in number of matings and litter size. Selection was for a single trait with a heritability of 0.2. The trait was controlled by 7702 biallelic quantitative-trait loci (QTL) that were distributed across a 30-M genome. The genome contained 54,218 biallelic markers that were used in GOCS and GBLUP. A total of 6012 identity-by-descent loci were placed across the genome in base populations. Unique alleles at these loci were used to calculate rates of true inbreeding. Breeding schemes were run for 10 discrete generations. Selection candidates were genotyped and phenotyped before selection. RESULTS: POCS realised more true genetic gain than GOCS at a 0.01 rate of true inbreeding in all combinations of breeding scheme and prediction method. POCS realised 14 to 33% more true genetic gain than GOCS with PBLUP in the three breeding schemes. It realised 1.5 to 5.7% more true genetic gain than GOCS with GBLUP. CONCLUSIONS: POCS realised more true genetic gain than GOCS because it managed expected genetic drift without restricting selection at QTL. By contrast, GOCS penalised changes in allele frequencies at markers that were generated by genetic drift and selection. Because these marker alleles were in linkage disequilibrium with QTL alleles, GOCS restricted changes in allele frequencies at QTL. This provides little incentive to use GOCS and highlights that we have more to learn before we can control inbreeding using genomic relationships in selective-breeding schemes. Until we can do so, POCS remains a worthy method of optimum-contribution selection because it realises more true genetic gain than GOCS at the same rate of true inbreeding. BioMed Central 2019-07-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6615244/ /pubmed/31286868 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-019-0475-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 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
Henryon, Mark
Liu, Huiming
Berg, Peer
Su, Guosheng
Nielsen, Hanne Marie
Gebregiwergis, Gebreyohans T.
Sørensen, A. Christian
Pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships
title Pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships
title_full Pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships
title_fullStr Pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships
title_full_unstemmed Pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships
title_short Pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships
title_sort pedigree relationships to control inbreeding in optimum-contribution selection realise more genetic gain than genomic relationships
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6615244/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31286868
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-019-0475-5
work_keys_str_mv AT henryonmark pedigreerelationshipstocontrolinbreedinginoptimumcontributionselectionrealisemoregeneticgainthangenomicrelationships
AT liuhuiming pedigreerelationshipstocontrolinbreedinginoptimumcontributionselectionrealisemoregeneticgainthangenomicrelationships
AT bergpeer pedigreerelationshipstocontrolinbreedinginoptimumcontributionselectionrealisemoregeneticgainthangenomicrelationships
AT suguosheng pedigreerelationshipstocontrolinbreedinginoptimumcontributionselectionrealisemoregeneticgainthangenomicrelationships
AT nielsenhannemarie pedigreerelationshipstocontrolinbreedinginoptimumcontributionselectionrealisemoregeneticgainthangenomicrelationships
AT gebregiwergisgebreyohanst pedigreerelationshipstocontrolinbreedinginoptimumcontributionselectionrealisemoregeneticgainthangenomicrelationships
AT sørensenachristian pedigreerelationshipstocontrolinbreedinginoptimumcontributionselectionrealisemoregeneticgainthangenomicrelationships