Cargando…

Spatial modelling improves genetic evaluation in smallholder breeding programs

BACKGROUND: Breeders and geneticists use statistical models to separate genetic and environmental effects on phenotype. A common way to separate these effects is to model a descriptor of an environment, a contemporary group or herd, and account for genetic relationship between animals across environ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Selle, Maria L., Steinsland, Ingelin, Powell, Owen, Hickey, John M., Gorjanc, Gregor
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7670695/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33198636
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-020-00588-w
_version_ 1783610789417975808
author Selle, Maria L.
Steinsland, Ingelin
Powell, Owen
Hickey, John M.
Gorjanc, Gregor
author_facet Selle, Maria L.
Steinsland, Ingelin
Powell, Owen
Hickey, John M.
Gorjanc, Gregor
author_sort Selle, Maria L.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Breeders and geneticists use statistical models to separate genetic and environmental effects on phenotype. A common way to separate these effects is to model a descriptor of an environment, a contemporary group or herd, and account for genetic relationship between animals across environments. However, separating the genetic and environmental effects in smallholder systems is challenging due to small herd sizes and weak genetic connectedness across herds. We hypothesised that accounting for spatial relationships between nearby herds can improve genetic evaluation in smallholder systems. Furthermore, geographically referenced environmental covariates are increasingly available and could model underlying sources of spatial relationships. The objective of this study was therefore, to evaluate the potential of spatial modelling to improve genetic evaluation in dairy cattle smallholder systems. METHODS: We performed simulations and real dairy cattle data analysis to test our hypothesis. We modelled environmental variation by estimating herd and spatial effects. Herd effects were considered independent, whereas spatial effects had distance-based covariance between herds. We compared these models using pedigree or genomic data. RESULTS: The results show that in smallholder systems (i) standard models do not separate genetic and environmental effects accurately, (ii) spatial modelling increases the accuracy of genetic evaluation for phenotyped and non-phenotyped animals, (iii) environmental covariates do not substantially improve the accuracy of genetic evaluation beyond simple distance-based relationships between herds, (iv) the benefit of spatial modelling was largest when separating the genetic and environmental effects was challenging, and (v) spatial modelling was beneficial when using either pedigree or genomic data. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the potential of spatial modelling to improve genetic evaluation in smallholder systems. This improvement is driven by establishing environmental connectedness between herds, which enhances separation of genetic and environmental effects. We suggest routine spatial modelling in genetic evaluations, particularly for smallholder systems. Spatial modelling could also have a major impact in studies of human and wild populations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7670695
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76706952020-11-18 Spatial modelling improves genetic evaluation in smallholder breeding programs Selle, Maria L. Steinsland, Ingelin Powell, Owen Hickey, John M. Gorjanc, Gregor Genet Sel Evol Research Article BACKGROUND: Breeders and geneticists use statistical models to separate genetic and environmental effects on phenotype. A common way to separate these effects is to model a descriptor of an environment, a contemporary group or herd, and account for genetic relationship between animals across environments. However, separating the genetic and environmental effects in smallholder systems is challenging due to small herd sizes and weak genetic connectedness across herds. We hypothesised that accounting for spatial relationships between nearby herds can improve genetic evaluation in smallholder systems. Furthermore, geographically referenced environmental covariates are increasingly available and could model underlying sources of spatial relationships. The objective of this study was therefore, to evaluate the potential of spatial modelling to improve genetic evaluation in dairy cattle smallholder systems. METHODS: We performed simulations and real dairy cattle data analysis to test our hypothesis. We modelled environmental variation by estimating herd and spatial effects. Herd effects were considered independent, whereas spatial effects had distance-based covariance between herds. We compared these models using pedigree or genomic data. RESULTS: The results show that in smallholder systems (i) standard models do not separate genetic and environmental effects accurately, (ii) spatial modelling increases the accuracy of genetic evaluation for phenotyped and non-phenotyped animals, (iii) environmental covariates do not substantially improve the accuracy of genetic evaluation beyond simple distance-based relationships between herds, (iv) the benefit of spatial modelling was largest when separating the genetic and environmental effects was challenging, and (v) spatial modelling was beneficial when using either pedigree or genomic data. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the potential of spatial modelling to improve genetic evaluation in smallholder systems. This improvement is driven by establishing environmental connectedness between herds, which enhances separation of genetic and environmental effects. We suggest routine spatial modelling in genetic evaluations, particularly for smallholder systems. Spatial modelling could also have a major impact in studies of human and wild populations. BioMed Central 2020-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7670695/ /pubmed/33198636 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-020-00588-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Selle, Maria L.
Steinsland, Ingelin
Powell, Owen
Hickey, John M.
Gorjanc, Gregor
Spatial modelling improves genetic evaluation in smallholder breeding programs
title Spatial modelling improves genetic evaluation in smallholder breeding programs
title_full Spatial modelling improves genetic evaluation in smallholder breeding programs
title_fullStr Spatial modelling improves genetic evaluation in smallholder breeding programs
title_full_unstemmed Spatial modelling improves genetic evaluation in smallholder breeding programs
title_short Spatial modelling improves genetic evaluation in smallholder breeding programs
title_sort spatial modelling improves genetic evaluation in smallholder breeding programs
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7670695/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33198636
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-020-00588-w
work_keys_str_mv AT sellemarial spatialmodellingimprovesgeneticevaluationinsmallholderbreedingprograms
AT steinslandingelin spatialmodellingimprovesgeneticevaluationinsmallholderbreedingprograms
AT powellowen spatialmodellingimprovesgeneticevaluationinsmallholderbreedingprograms
AT hickeyjohnm spatialmodellingimprovesgeneticevaluationinsmallholderbreedingprograms
AT gorjancgregor spatialmodellingimprovesgeneticevaluationinsmallholderbreedingprograms