Y. Masuda1, I. Misztal1, P. M. VanRaden2, and T. J. Lawlor3

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

2007 Paul VanRaden, Mel Tooker, and Nicolas Gengler Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD, USA, and Gembloux Agricultural U., Belgium

Advertisements

Wiggans, 2013RL meeting, Aug. 15 (1) Dr. George R. Wiggans, Acting Research Leader Bldg. 005, Room 306, BARC-West (main office);

Extension of Bayesian procedures to integrate and to blend multiple external information into genetic evaluations J. Vandenplas 1,2, N. Gengler 1 1 University.

Mating Programs Including Genomic Relationships and Dominance Effects

Mating Programs Including Genomic Relationships and Dominance Effects Chuanyu Sun 1, Paul M. VanRaden 2, Jeff R. O'Connell 3 1 National Association of.

WiggansARS Big Data Workshop – July 16, 2015 (1) George R. Wiggans Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,

Impacts of inclusion of foreign data in genomic evaluation of dairy cattle K. M. Olson 1, P. M. VanRaden 2, D. J. Null 2, and M. E. Tooker 2 1 National.

2007 J. B. Cole 1,*, P. M. VanRaden 1, J. R. O'Connell 3, C. P. Van Tassell 1,2, T. S. Sonstegard 2, R. D. Schnabel 4, J. F. Taylor 4, and G. R. Wiggans.

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD 2011 Avoiding bias from genomic pre- selection in converting.

George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD National Association.

Performance of Holsteins that originated from embryo transfer or twin births H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright* and R.L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory,

Comparison of Holstein service-sire fertility for heifer and cow breedings with conventional and sexed semen H. D. Norman*, J. L. Hutchison, and P. M.

Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2013 Paul VanRaden University.

John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD March 2012 AIPL.

2003 G.R. Wiggans,* P.M. VanRaden, and J.L. Edwards Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD

2007 Paul VanRaden and Mel Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA

John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD , USA The use and.

2007 Paul VanRaden, Mel Tooker, Jan Wright, Chuanyu Sun, and Jana Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD National Association of Animal.

Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA 2004 Genetic Base and Trait Definition Update.

G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2009 G.R. WiggansInner.

John B. Cole, Ph.D. Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD, USA The U.S. genetic.

T. A. Cooper and G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD Council.

2002 Paul VanRaden, Ashley Sanders, Melvin Tooker, Bob Miller, and Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA,

Adjustment of selection index coefficients and polygenic variance to improve regressions and reliability of genomic evaluations P. M. VanRaden, J. R. Wright*,

2007 Melvin Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA

2007 Paul VanRaden and Jan Wright Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD 2013 Measuring genomic pre-selection in theory.

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Lab, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA Pete Sullivan Canadian Dairy Network, Guelph, ON, Canada

J. B. Cole * and P. M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD

Paul VanRaden and Melvin Tooker* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD 2006.

WiggansCDCB industry meeting – Sept. 29, 2015 (1) George R. Wiggans Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,

G.R. Wiggans* and P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD

2007 Paul VanRaden, Melvin Tooker*, George Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory 2009 Can you believe those genomic.

J. B. Cole *, G. R. Wiggans, P. M. VanRaden, and R. H. Miller Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA

Norman, 2014ICAR / Interbull annual meeting, Berlin, Germany, May 20, 2014 (1) Dr. H. Duane Norman Interim Administrator Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding.

Paul VanRaden and John Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA 2004 Planned Changes to Models and Trait Definitions.

Adjustment of breeding values for past and future inbreeding Paul VanRaden*, Lori Smith Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service,

April 2010 (1) Prediction of Breed Composition & Multibreed Genomic Evaluations K. M. Olson and P. M. VanRaden.

Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding April 27, 2010 Interpretation of genomic breeding values from a unified, one-step national evaluation Research project.

2007 Paul VanRaden and Melvin Tooker* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory 2010 Gains in reliability from combining subsets.

John B. Cole Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD What.

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD Iterative combination of national phenotype, genotype, pedigree,

Multi-trait, multi-breed conception rate evaluations P. M. VanRaden 1, J. R. Wright 1 *, C. Sun 2, J. L. Hutchison 1 and M. E. Tooker 1 1 Animal Genomics.

Multibreed Genomic Evaluation Using Purebred Dairy Cattle K. M. Olson* 1 and P. M. VanRaden 2 1 Department of Dairy Science Virginia Polytechnic and State.

2007 Paul VanRaden, George Wiggans, Jeff O’Connell, John Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Tad Sonstegard, and Curt Van Tassell Bovine Functional.

2006 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Predicting Genetic.

2007 John Cole, Paul VanRaden, George Wiggans, and Melvin Kuhn Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD,

2006 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD AIPL Contributions.

Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA Inbreeding Adjustments and Effect on Genetic Trend.

G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD Select Sires‘ Holstein.

G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2011 National Breeders.

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA 2007 Genetic evaluation.

G.R. Wiggans, T. A. Cooper* and P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD

2007 Paul VanRaden 1, Curt Van Tassell 2, George Wiggans 1, Tad Sonstegard 2, Bob Schnabel 3, Jerry Taylor 3, and Flavio Schenkel 4, Paul VanRaden 1, Curt.

Meori Rosen Past, Present, and Future Dairy Cattle Breeding in Israel.

John B. Cole Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2016 AGIL Report.

Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2014 Paul VanRaden Advancing.

2005 P.M. VanRaden and M.E. Tooker* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Effect.

J.R. Thomasen, H. Liu and A.C. Sørensen

Methods to compute reliabilities for genomic predictions of feed intake Paul VanRaden, Jana Hutchison, Bingjie Li, Erin Connor, and John Cole USDA, Agricultural.

Genomic Evaluations.

Correlations Among Measures of Dairy Cattle Fertility and Longevity

Improving production efficiency through genetic selection

Use of a threshold animal model to estimate calving ease and stillbirth (co)variance components for US Holsteins.

Validation of genomic predictions and genomic reliability

Predictions of Breed Composition Using Holsteins, Jersey, and Brown Swiss Genotypes K. M. Olson and P. M. VanRaden.

Can you believe those genomic evaluations for young bulls?

Percent of total breedings

Increased reliability of genetic evaluations for dairy cattle in the United States from use of genomic information Abstr.

M.T. Kuhn* and P. M. VanRaden USDA-AIPL, Beltsville, MD

Presentation transcript:

Y. Masuda1, I. Misztal1, P. M. VanRaden2, and T. J. Lawlor3 Genetic trends from single-step GBLUP and traditional BLUP for production traits in US Holstein Y. Masuda1, I. Misztal1, P. M. VanRaden2, and T. J. Lawlor3 1 University of Georgia, USA 2 AGIL, USDA, USA 3 Holstein Association USA, Inc., USA

Bias in the traditional PTA The traditional PTA is still used in multi-step genomic prediction. PTA may be biased down due to genomic “pre-selection”. Mixed model theory: biased if MME lacks information used in selection. Pre-selected Mendelian Sampling Phenotype Pedigree All young animals Animal model BLUP Genomics Trad. PTA Genotyped animals Genom. Pred. Underestimated Genomic Value

Bias in the traditional PTA The traditional PTA is still used in multi-step genomic prediction. PTA may be biased down due to genomic “pre-selection”. Mixed model theory: biased if MME lacks information used in selection. All young animals All animals Genomics Single- step GBLUP Pedigree Pre-selected Phenotype GPTA Mendelian Sampling

Genetic trend Single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) may account for the pre-selection. Hypothetical genetic trend: Comparisons Single-step GBLUP GPTA vs the traditional PTA (Data up to 2015) Multi-step official GPTA vs the corresponding PTA (Published in 2016) (G)PTA ssGBLUP (GPTA) Traditional BLUP (PTA) Year

Data Data Description Number of records Phenotypes Milk, fat, and protein yield from US Holsteins; from 1990 to 2015 50,970,954 Pedigree 3 generations back from phenotyped cows or genotyped animals; 215 UPGs 29,651,623 Genotypes Both male and female; including young bulls and heifers (#SNPs = 60671) 764,029

Model Three-trait repeatability model 𝐲=𝐗𝐛+𝐙𝐮+𝐙𝐐𝐠+𝐖𝐩+𝐇𝐬+𝐞 Relationship matrix for ssGBLUP 𝐇 −1 = 𝐀 −1 + 0 0 0 𝐆 𝐴𝑃𝑌 −1 − 𝐀 22 −1 𝐆 𝐴𝑃𝑌 −1 from APY (Algorithm for Proven and Young) with 18,359 “core” animals randomly selected

Inbreeding and UPGs QP-transformation for 𝐀 −1 (Westell et al., 1988; Quaas 1988) 𝐀 ∗ = 𝐀 −𝟏 − 𝐀 −𝟏 𝐐 − 𝐐 ′ 𝐀 −𝟏 𝐐 ′ 𝐀 −𝟏 𝐐 : Henderson’s rule with inbreeding QP-transformation for 𝐇 −1 (Misztal et al., 2013) 𝐇 ∗ = 𝐀 ∗ + 0 0 0 0 𝐆 −1 − 𝐀 22 −1 − 𝐆 −1 − 𝐀 22 −1 𝐐 2 0 − 𝐐 2 ′ ( 𝐆 −1 − 𝐀 22 −1 ) 𝐐 2 ′ ( 𝐆 −1 − 𝐀 22 −1 ) 𝐐 2

Cows : ssGBLUP vs traditional PTA (protein) 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 -5 5 10 Year of Birth PTA (kg) ssGBLUP BLUP Genotyped cows All cows *Cows with record(s)

Cows : ssGBLUP vs traditional PTA (protein) 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 -5 5 10 Year of Birth PTA (kg) ssGBLUP BLUP Genotyped cows All cows 1.1 kg/yr 0.4 kg/yr 1.2 kg/yr *Cows with record(s)

Cows : ssGBLUP vs traditional PTA (protein) 20000 40000 60000 80000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 -5 5 10 Year of Birth PTA (kg) ssGBLUP BLUP Genotyped cows All cows Number of genotyped cows with record(s) *Cows with record(s)

Cows : ssGBLUP vs traditional PTA (protein) 20000 40000 60000 80000 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 -5 5 10 Year of Birth PTA (kg) ssGBLUP BLUP Genotyped cows Number of genotyped cows with record(s) Selective genotyping for high-producing cows Genomic pre-selection *Cows with record(s)

Cows: ssGBLUP vs traditional PTA 2000 2004 2008 2012 -200 -100 100 200 300 400 Year of Birth PTA (kg) ssGBLUP BLUP Genotyped cows All cows -5 5 10 15 Milk Fat Protein ssGBLUP ssGBLUP BLUP BLUP *Cows with record(s)

Bulls: ssGBLUP vs traditional PTA (protein) 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 6 8 10 12 14 Year of Birth PTA (kg) ssGBLUP BLUP Bulls: ssGBLUP vs traditional PTA (protein) *Genotyped bulls with at least 10 daughters with record(s)

Bulls: ssGBLUP vs traditional PTA 2000 2004 2008 150 200 250 300 350 400 Year of Birth PTA (kg) 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Bulls: ssGBLUP vs traditional PTA Milk Fat Protein ssGBLUP ssGBLUP ssGBLUP BLUP BLUP BLUP *Genotyped bulls with at least 10 daughters with record(s)

Cows: Official (G)PTA Milk Fat Protein *Cows with record(s) 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 -200 -100 100 200 300 Year of Birth PTA (kg) msGBLUP Trad-BLUP -5 5 10 15 20 Cows: Official (G)PTA Milk Fat Protein *Cows with record(s)

Bulls: Official (G)PTA 2000 2004 2008 2012 -100 100 200 Year of Birth PTA (kg) msGBLUP Trad-BLUP -5 5 10 15 -2 2 4 6 8 Bulls: Official (G)PTA Milk Fat Protein *Genotyped bulls with at least 10 daughters with record(s)

Annual genetic gain (kg) Animal Year of Birth Evaluation Milk Fat Protein Bulls 2008 – 2010 Single-step GPTA 32 1.2 1.7 Traditional PTA 19 0.5 1.3 Official GPTA 2016 23 1.1 1.4 PTA used for official GPTA 0.9 Cows 2009 – 2012 29 1.0 7 0.2 0.4 24

Adjustments on the official PTA Milk Official PTA adjusted by Wiggans et al. (2012) Cow trend aligned to bull trend (Reduction in bias for cows) Same trend for PTA and GPTA Additional adjustments and data in the official evaluation Multi-breed Foreign animals Inbreeding adjustments All available historical data Unadjusted PTA 16kg/yr 24kg/yr = same to GPTA Adjusted (official) PTA

Future of preselection? 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 -5 5 10 Year of Birth PTA (kg) ssGBLUP BLUP Genotyped cows All cows *Cows with record(s)

Summary The traditional PTA for genotyped bulls and cows are likely underestimated. Single-step GBLUP seems to at least partially account for the pre- selection bias. The official PTA has a consistent genetic trend with the official GPTA because of adjustments. Single-step GBLUP may not require the adjustments to give a reasonable genetic trend.

Acknowledgement USDA NIFA (2015-67015-22936) and Holstein Association USA for financial support. Council of Dairy Cattle Breeding for phenotype, genotype, and pedigree data. John Cole and Melvin Tooker (USDA-AGIL) for preparing the initial data sets and a computing environment.