Impact of missing pedigrees in single-step genomic evaluation
Karin Meyer
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia. Email: kmeyer@une.edu.au
Animal Production Science - https://doi.org/10.1071/AN21045
Submitted: 4 February 2021 Accepted: 8 April 2021 Published online: 13 October 2021
Abstract
Context: A common problem in mixed model-based genetic evaluation schemes for livestock is that cohorts of animals differ systematically in mean genetic merit, for example, due to missing pedigree. This can be modelled by fitting genetic groups. Single-step genomic evaluation (ssGBLUP) combining information from genotyped and non-genotyped individuals has become routine, but little is known of the effects of unknown parents in this context.
Aims: To investigate the effects of missing pedigrees on accuracy and bias of predicted breeding values for ssGBLUP analyses.
Methods: A simulation study was used to examine alternative ways to account for genetic groups in ssGBLUP, for multi-generation data with strong selection and rapidly increasing numbers of genotyped animals in the most recent generations.
Key results: Results demonstrated that missing pedigrees can markedly impair predicted breeding values. With selection, alignment of genomic and pedigree relationship matrices is essential when fitting unknown parent groups (UPG). Genomic relationships are complete; that is, they ‘automatically’ reference the genomic base, which typically differs from the genetic base for pedigreed animals. This can lead to biased comparisons between genotyped and non-genotyped animals with unknown parents when the two categories of animals are assigned to the same UPG. Allocating genotyped individuals to a separate UPG across all generations for each strain or breed was shown to be a simple and effective way to reduce misalignment bias. In contrast, fitting metafounders modified pedigree-based relationships to account for ancestral genomic relationships and inbreeding rather than the genomic relationship matrix. Thus, no bias due to different types of animals assigned to the same metafounders was apparent. Overall, fitting metafounders yielded slightly higher correlations between true and predicted breeding values than did UPG models, which assume genetic groups to be unrelated.
Conclusions: Missing pedigrees are more problematic with ssGBLUP than for analyses considering pedigree-based relationships only. UPG models with separation of genotyped and non-genotyped individuals and analyses fitting metafounders yielded comparable predictions of breeding values in terms of accuracy and bias.
Implications: A previously unidentified incompatibility between alignment of founder populations and assignment of genotyped and non-genotyped animals to the same UPG has been reported. Implementation of the proposed strategy to reduce ‘double counting’ is straightforward and can improve results of ssGBLUP analyses.
Keywords: genetic evaluation, single step, unknown parent groups, metafounders.
References
Aldridge MN, Vandenplas J, Bergsma R, Calus MPL (2020) Variance estimates are similar using pedigree or genomic relationships with or without the use of metafounders or the algorithm for proven and young animals. Journal of Animal Science 98, skaa019| Variance estimates are similar using pedigree or genomic relationships with or without the use of metafounders or the algorithm for proven and young animals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31955195PubMed |
Bradford HL, Masuda Y, VanRaden PM, Legarra A, Misztal I (2019) Modeling missing pedigree in single-step genomic BLUP. Journal of Dairy Science 102, 2336–2346.
| Modeling missing pedigree in single-step genomic BLUP.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30638995PubMed |
Chen CY, Misztal I, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Muir WM (2011) Effect of different genomic relationship matrices on accuracy and scale. Journal of Animal Science 89, 2673–2679.
| Effect of different genomic relationship matrices on accuracy and scale.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21454868PubMed |
Christensen OF (2012) Compatibility of pedigree-based and marker-based relationship matrices for single-step genetic evaluation. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 44, 37
| Compatibility of pedigree-based and marker-based relationship matrices for single-step genetic evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23206367PubMed |
Gao H, Madsen P, Aamand GP, Thomasen JR, Sørensen AC, Jensen J (2019) Bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study. BMC Genomics 20, 956
| Bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31818251PubMed |
Garcia-Baccino CA, Legarra A, Christensen OF, Misztal I, Pocrnic I, Vitezica ZG, Cantet RJC (2017) Metafounders are related to FST fixation indices and reduce bias in single-step genomic evaluations. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 49, 34
| Metafounders are related to FST fixation indices and reduce bias in single-step genomic evaluations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28283016PubMed |
Gengler N, Mayeres P, Szydlowski M (2007) A simple method to approximate gene content in large pedigree populations: application to the myostatin gene in dual-purpose Belgian Blue cattle. Animal 1, 21–28.
| A simple method to approximate gene content in large pedigree populations: application to the myostatin gene in dual-purpose Belgian Blue cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22444206PubMed |
Graser H, Tier B, Nicol D, Scarth R, Hammond K, Allen J (1987) Group Breedplan: an across-herd evaluation procedure for NBRS. In ‘Proceedings of the 6th Australian Association of Animal Breeding and Genetics (AAABG) conference’. pp. 124–130. (AAABG: Perth, WA, Australia)
Hayes BJ (2011) Efficient parentage assignment and pedigree reconstruction with dense single nucleotide polymorphism data. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 2114–2117.
| Efficient parentage assignment and pedigree reconstruction with dense single nucleotide polymorphism data.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 21427003PubMed |
Henderson CR (1976) A simple method for computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix used in prediction of breeding values. Biometrics 32, 69–83.
| A simple method for computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix used in prediction of breeding values.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hsu WL, Garrick DJ, Fernando RL (2017) The accuracy and bias of single-step genomic prediction for populations under selection. G3: Genes, Genomes. Genetics 7, 2685–2694.
| The accuracy and bias of single-step genomic prediction for populations under selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Junqueira VS, Lopes PS, Lourenco D, Silva FF, Cardoso FF (2020) Applying the metafounders approach for genomic evaluation in a multibreed beef cattle population. Frontiers in Genetics 11, 1475
| Applying the metafounders approach for genomic evaluation in a multibreed beef cattle population.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Klápště J, Suontama M, Dungey HS, Telfer EJ, Graham NJ, Low CB, Stovold GT (2018) Effect of hidden relatedness on single-step genetic evaluation in an advanced open-pollinated breeding program. The Journal of Heredity 109, 802–810.
| Effect of hidden relatedness on single-step genetic evaluation in an advanced open-pollinated breeding program.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30285150PubMed |
Kudinov AA, Mäntysaari EA, Aamand GP, Uimari P, Strandén I (2020) Metafounder approach for single-step genomic evaluations of Red Dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 103, 6299–6310.
| Metafounder approach for single-step genomic evaluations of Red Dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32418688PubMed |
Legarra A, Christensen OF, Vitezica ZG, Aguilar I, Misztal I (2015) Ancestral relationships using metafounders: finite ancestral populations and across population relationships. Genetics 200, 455–468.
| Ancestral relationships using metafounders: finite ancestral populations and across population relationships.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25873631PubMed |
Macedo FL, Christensen OF, Astruc JM, Aguilar I, Masuda Y, Legarra A (2020) Bias and accuracy of dairy sheep evaluations using BLUP and SSGBLUP with metafounders and unknown parent groups. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 52, 47
| Bias and accuracy of dairy sheep evaluations using BLUP and SSGBLUP with metafounders and unknown parent groups.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32787772PubMed |
Masuda Y, Tsuruta S, Bermann M, Bradford HL, Misztal I (2021) Comparison of models for missing pedigree in single-step genomic prediction. Journal of Animal Science 99, skab019
| Comparison of models for missing pedigree in single-step genomic prediction.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 33493284PubMed |
Matilainen K, Koivula M, Stranden I, Aamand GP, Mantysäari EA (2016) Managing genetic groups in single-step genomic evaluations applied on female fertility traits in Nordic Red dairy cattle. Interbull Bulletin 50, 71–75.
McPeek MS, Wu X, Ober C (2004) Best linear unbiased allele-frequency estimation in complex pedigrees. Biometrics 60, 359–367.
| Best linear unbiased allele-frequency estimation in complex pedigrees.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15180661PubMed |
Meyer K (2007) WOMBAT: a tool for mixed model analyses in quantitative genetics by REML. Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B. 8, 815–821.
| WOMBAT: a tool for mixed model analyses in quantitative genetics by REML.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17973343PubMed |
Meyer K (2008) Likelihood calculations to evaluate experimental designs to estimate genetic variances. Heredity 101, 212–221.
| Likelihood calculations to evaluate experimental designs to estimate genetic variances.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18523444PubMed |
Meyer K (2018) Wrestling with a WOMBAT: Selected new features for linear mixed model analyses in the genomic age. Paper No. 201. In ‘Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production’, 11–16 February 2018, Auckland, New Zealand.
Meyer K, Swan AA (2019) ‘Metafounders’ to model base populations in genomic evaluation for multi-breed sheep data. Proceedings of the Association for Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 23, 27–30.
Meyer K, Tier B, Swan AA (2018) Estimates of genetic trend for single-step genomic evaluations. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 50, 39
| Estimates of genetic trend for single-step genomic evaluations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30075705PubMed |
Misztal I, Vitezica ZG, Legarra A, Aguilar I, Swan AA (2013) Unknown-parent groups in single-step genomic evaluation. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 130, 252–258.
| Unknown-parent groups in single-step genomic evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23855627PubMed |
Misztal I, Lourenco D, Legarra A (2020) Current status of genomic evaluation. Journal of Animal Science 98, skaa101
| Current status of genomic evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32267923PubMed |
Nani JP, Bacheller LR, Cole JB, VanRaden PM (2020) Discovering ancestors and connecting relatives in large genomic databases. Journal of Dairy Science 103, 1729–1734.
| Discovering ancestors and connecting relatives in large genomic databases.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 31837776PubMed |
Quaas RL (1976) Computing the diagonal elements of a large numerator relationship matrix. Biometrics 32, 949–953.
| Computing the diagonal elements of a large numerator relationship matrix.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Quaas RL (1988) Additive genetic model with genetic groups and relationships. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 91–98.
| Additive genetic model with genetic groups and relationships.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Quaas RL, Pollak EJ (1981) Modified equations for sire models with groups. Journal of Dairy Science 64, 1868–1872.
| Modified equations for sire models with groups.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sargolzaei M, Schenkel FS (2009) QMSim: a large-scale genome simulator for livestock. Bioinformatics 25, 680–681.
| QMSim: a large-scale genome simulator for livestock.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19176551PubMed |
Strandén I, Mäntysaari EA (2020) Bpop: an efficient program for estimating base population allele frequencies in single and multiple group structured populations. Agricultural and Food Science 29, 166–176.
| Bpop: an efficient program for estimating base population allele frequencies in single and multiple group structured populations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Strandén I, Matilainen K, Aamand G, Mäntysaari EA (2017) Solving efficiently large single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction models. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 134, 264–274.
| Solving efficiently large single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction models.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 28508482PubMed |
Thompson R (1979) Sire evaluation. Biometrics 35, 339–353.
| Sire evaluation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
van Grevenhof EM, Vandenplas J, Calus MPL (2019) Genomic prediction for crossbred performance using metafounders. Journal of Animal Science 97, 548–558.
| Genomic prediction for crossbred performance using metafounders.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 30423111PubMed |
Van Raden PM (1992) Accounting for inbreeding and crossbreeding in genetic evaluation of large populations. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 3136–3144.
| Accounting for inbreeding and crossbreeding in genetic evaluation of large populations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Van Raden PM (2008) Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 4414–4423.
| Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Vitezica ZG, Aguilar I, Misztal I, Legarra A (2011) Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection. Genetical Research 93, 357–366.
| Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wang L, Janss LL, Madsen P, Henshall J, Huang CH, Marois D, Alemu S, Sørensen A, Jensen J (2020) Effect of genomic selection and genotyping strategy on estimation of variance components in animal models using different relationship matrices. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 52, 31
| Effect of genomic selection and genotyping strategy on estimation of variance components in animal models using different relationship matrices.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 32527317PubMed |
Westell RA, Quaas RL, Van Vleck LD (1988) Genetic groups in an animal model. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 1310–1318.
| Genetic groups in an animal model.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
