The role of genomics in pig improvement
D. J. Garrick
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
AL Rae Centre, Massey University, Ruakura, Hamilton, New Zealand. Email: D.Garrick@massey.ac.nz
Animal Production Science 57(12) 2360-2365 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN17277
Submitted: 2 May 2017 Accepted: 16 August 2017 Published: 20 November 2017
Abstract
Genomic prediction uses marker genotypes distributed throughout the genome to track the inheritance of chromosome fragments and quantify their contribution to the superiority or inferiority of breeding merit. It does this by using a so-called training population of historical animals with both genotype and phenotypic measures. Genotyping adds additional costs to an improvement program, so these costs must be offset elsewhere for there to be net benefit from adopting genomics in pig improvement. Genomic information is used implicitly or explicitly to predict the merit of young selection candidates more reliably than is the case when using only pedigree and phenotypic performance information. More accurate genomic prediction of index merit in young selection candidates results in faster genetic progress. Further, the technology allows good use to be made of phenotypic measures from non-traditional sources, including descendants of nucleus animals whose performance is measured in the commercial sector. This facilitates nucleus selection to include more reliable predictions for disease-resistance, and carcass and meat-quality traits, other traits with low heritability or those measured late in life, and to directly target selection for crossbred rather than purebred performance. Collectively, these features allow genomic prediction to provide a more balanced response to selection with respect to the entire portfolio of traits that influence income and costs in pig-production systems. Achieving the full cost–benefit potential from using genomics will not occur from simply genotyping nucleus animals and using this information in prediction, it requires innovation, ongoing phenotyping and genotyping, and re-examination of all the systems and processes involved in pig improvement.
Additional keywords: crossbred performance, evaluation, selection.
References
Aguilar I, Misztal I, Johnson DL, Legarra A, Tsuruta S, Lawlor TJ (2010) Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 743–752.| Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXht1CjtbY%3D&md5=bbf0aa73bc972fc9a0fe8a9a0f8c3047CAS |
Bichard M (1971) Dissemination of genetic improvement through a livestock industry. Animal Production 13, 401–411.
| Dissemination of genetic improvement through a livestock industry.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Boddicker N, Waide EH, Rowland RRR, Lunney JK, Garrick DJ, Reecy JM, Dekkers JCM (2012) Evidence for a major QTL associated with host response to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus challenge. Journal of Animal Science 90, 1733–1746.
| Evidence for a major QTL associated with host response to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus challenge.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC38XpsFWgsL0%3D&md5=0b582f43c1803e7b9b6a97b563898550CAS |
Burkard C, Lillico SG, Reid E, Jackson B, Mileham AJ, Ait-Ali T, Whitelaw CBA, Archibald AL (2017) Precision engineering for PRRSV resistance in pigs: macrophages from genome-edited pigs lacking CD163 SCR5 domain are fully resistant to both PRRSC genotypes while maintaining biological function. PLoS Pathogens 13, e1006206
| Precision engineering for PRRSV resistance in pigs: macrophages from genome-edited pigs lacking CD163 SCR5 domain are fully resistant to both PRRSC genotypes while maintaining biological function.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dekkers JCM (2004) Commercial application of marker- and gene-assisted selection in livestock: strategies and lessons. Journal of Animal Science 82, E313–E328.
Dekkers JCM (2007) Marker-assisted selection for commercial crossbred performance. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2104–2114.
| Marker-assisted selection for commercial crossbred performance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXpsVGlsrk%3D&md5=9e98e99b99b1f95fb6a6b8079d0e7081CAS |
Esfandyari H, Sorenson AC, Bijma P (2015) Maximizing crossbred performance through purebred genomic selection. Genetics, Selection, Evolution. 47, 16
| Maximizing crossbred performance through purebred genomic selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM, Garrick DJ (2014) A class of Bayesian methods to combine large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals for whole-genome analyses. Genetics, Selection, Evolution. 46, 50
| A class of Bayesian methods to combine large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals for whole-genome analyses.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fernando RL, Cheng H, Golden BL, Garrick DJ (2016) Computational strategies for alternative single-step Bayesian regression models with large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals. Genetics, Selection, Evolution. 48, 96
| Computational strategies for alternative single-step Bayesian regression models with large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Goddard ME, Hayes BJ (2009) Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes. Nature Reviews. Genetics 10, 381–391.
| Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXmtVKrsLw%3D&md5=0832b6f7a86e2d3bf8d6289189395b7eCAS |
Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM (2007) The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics 177, 2389–2397.
Harris BL, Johnson DL (2010) Genomic predictions for New Zealand dairy bulls and integration with national genetic evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 1243–1252.
| Genomic predictions for New Zealand dairy bulls and integration with national genetic evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3cXitlOis78%3D&md5=d72c8aad3d6a45b3dbd5ed6fbf6e4438CAS |
Hazel LN (1943) The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics 28, 476–490.
Hickey JM, Kinghorn BP, Tier B, Wilson JF, Dunstan N, van der Werf JHJ (2011) A combined long-range phasing and long haplotype imputation method to impute phase for SNP genotypes. Genetics, Selection, Evolution. 43, 12
| A combined long-range phasing and long haplotype imputation method to impute phase for SNP genotypes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ibánẽz-Escriche N, Fernando RL, Toosi A, Dekkers JCM (2009) Genomic selection of purebreds for crossbred performance. Genetics, Selection, Evolution. 41, 12
| Genomic selection of purebreds for crossbred performance.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Johnston DJ, Grant TP, Schatz TJ, Burns BM, Fordyce G, Lyons RE (2017) Repronomics project – enabling genetic improvement in reproduction in northern Australia. Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 22, 87
Kong A, Masson G, Frigge ML, Gylfason A, Zusmanovich P, Thorleifsson G, Olason PI, Ingason A, Steinberg S, Rafnar T, Sulem P, Mouy M, Jonsson F, Thorsteinsdottir U, Gudbjartsson DF, Stefansson H, Stefansson K (2008) Detection of sharing by descent, long-range phasing and haplotype imputation. Nature Genetics 40, 1068–1075.
| Detection of sharing by descent, long-range phasing and haplotype imputation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1cXhtVGgt77P&md5=7d31b2e85a85fb25e93526fa74b5729aCAS |
Legarra A, Christensen OF, Aguilar I, Misztal I (2014) Single step, a general approach for genomic selection. Livestock Science 166, 54–65.
| Single step, a general approach for genomic selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819–1829.
Miar Y, Plastow G, Wang Z (2015) Genomic selection, a new era for pork quality improvement. Springer Science Reviews 3, 27–37.
| Genomic selection, a new era for pork quality improvement.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nejati-Javaremi A, Smith C, Gibson JP (1997) Effect of total allelic relationship on accuracy of evaluation and response to selection. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1738–1745.
| Effect of total allelic relationship on accuracy of evaluation and response to selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK2sXkt1Gmtro%3D&md5=dc34a7590a06f4e4756a998f3a0a566bCAS |
Plastow GS (2016) Genomics to benefit livestock production: improving animal health. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 45, 349–354.
| Genomics to benefit livestock production: improving animal health.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ramos AM, Croojimans RPMA, Affara NA, Amaral AJ, Archibald AL, Beever JE, Bendixen C, Churcher C, Clark R, Dehais P, Hansen MS, Hedegaard J, Hu ZL, Kerstens HH, Law AS, Megens HJ, Milan D, Nonneman DJ, Rohrer GA, Rothschild MF, Smith TPL, Schnabel RD, Van Tassell CP, Taylor JF, Wiedmann RT, Schook LB, Groenen MAM (2009) Design of a high density SNP genotyping assay in the pig using SNPs identified and characterized by next generation sequencing technology. PLoS One 4, e6524
| Design of a high density SNP genotyping assay in the pig using SNPs identified and characterized by next generation sequencing technology.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Samorè AB, Fontanesi L (2016) Genomic selection in pigs: state of the art and perspectives. Italian Journal of Animal Science 15, 211–232.
| Genomic selection in pigs: state of the art and perspectives.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sargolzaei M, Chesnais JP, Schenkel FS (2014) A new approach for efficient genotype imputation using information from relatives. BMC Genomics 15, 478
| A new approach for efficient genotype imputation using information from relatives.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Smith C (1984) Rates of genetic change in farm livestock. Research and Development in Agriculture 1, 79–85.
Swan AA, Brown DJ, Daetwyler HD, Hayes BJ, Kelly MJ, Moghaddar N, Van der Werf JHJ (2014) Genomic evaluations in the Australian sheep industry. In ‘Proceedings of the 10th world congress on genetics applied to livestock production’, Vancouver, Canada.
VanRaden PM, Wiggans GR (1991) Derivation, calculation, and use of national animal-model information. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 2737–2746.
| Derivation, calculation, and use of national animal-model information.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DyaK38%2Fht1CnsA%3D%3D&md5=a8fb854c81e08fddbf8aa11d3ac70813CAS |
VanRaden PM, Van Tassell CP, Wiggans GR, Sonstegard TS, Schnabel RD, Taylor JF, Schenkel FS (2009) Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 16–24.
| Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD1MXlsVOrsw%3D%3D&md5=47a82dcb35a2317a9e6a2da6a23c3387CAS |
