1 GMACE Implementation Pete Sullivan, CDN & Paul VanRaden*, USDA.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
Advertisements

Jeopardy Q 1 Q 6 Q 11 Q 16 Q 21 Q 2 Q 7 Q 12 Q 17 Q 22 Q 3 Q 8 Q 13
ABC Technology Project
Squares and Square Root WALK. Solve each problem REVIEW:
Reliable genomic evaluations across breeds and borders Sander de Roos CRV, the Netherlands.
25 seconds left…...
We will resume in: 25 Minutes.
International Animal Improvement João Walter Dürr Interbull Centre Director Uppsala, Sweden.
2007 Paul VanRaden and Jeff O’Connell Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD U MD College of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD G.R. WiggansAlta Genetics.
Mating Programs Including Genomic Relationships and Dominance Effects
Changes in the use of young bulls K. M. Olson* 1, J. L. Hutchison 2, P. M. VanRaden 2, and H. D. Norman 2 1 National Association of Animal Breeders, Columbia,
2003 Rex L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Interbull as a Tool.
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.
2001 Interbull, August 2001 (1) Usefulness of international dairy bull evaluations Rex L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research.
2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD 2011 Avoiding bias from genomic pre- selection in converting.
2007 Paul VanRaden, Curt Van Tassell, George Wiggans, Tad Sonstegard, and Jeff O’Connell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory and Bovine Functional Genomics.
John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD March 2012 AIPL.
2006 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA Fertility Trait.
2007 Paul VanRaden and Mel Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA
2007 Paul VanRaden, Mel Tooker, Jan Wright, Chuanyu Sun, and Jana Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD National Association of Animal.
Paul VanRaden USDA Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA 2004 Choice of Scales for Delivery of Genetic Evaluations.
2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Lab, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA 2009 Future Animal Improvement Programs Applied.
2005 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA Selection for.
T. A. Cooper and G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD Council.
Adjustment of selection index coefficients and polygenic variance to improve regressions and reliability of genomic evaluations P. M. VanRaden, J. R. Wright*,
2007 Paul VanRaden, George Wiggans, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Curt Van Tassell, Tad Sonstegard, Bovine Functional Genomics Laboratory USDA.
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
Paul VanRaden, 1 Katie Olson, 2 Dan Null, 1 Mehdi Sargolzaei, 3 Marco Winters, 4 and Jan-Thijs van Kaam 5 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, ARS,
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.
2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA
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,
P. M. VanRaden and T. A. Cooper * Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA
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.
2007 Paul VanRaden 1, Jeff O’Connell 2, George Wiggans 1, Kent Weigel 3 1 Animal Improvement Programs Lab, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA 2 University of Maryland.
2007 Paul VanRaden 1, Jeff O’Connell 2, George Wiggans 1, Kent Weigel 3 1 Animal Improvement Programs Lab, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA 2 University of Maryland.
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.
2003 Paul M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Comparison of Longevity.
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.
Interbull meeting (1) Paul M. VanRaden and Rex L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville,
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.
ADSA Indianapolis 2001 (1) 2001 A Global Scale for Ranking Dairy Bulls Using Blended National Rankings Rex L. Powell * Paul M. VanRaden Animal Improvement.
2007 Paul VanRaden, George Wiggans, Jeff O’Connell, John Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Tad Sonstegard, and Curt Van Tassell Bovine Functional.
2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA 2008 New.
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.
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.
2001 ASAS/ADSA 2001 Conference (1) Simultaneous accounting for heterogeneity of (co)variance components in genetic evaluation of type traits N. Gengler.
Strategies to Incorporate Genomic Prediction Into Population-Wide Genetic Evaluations Nicolas Gengler 1,2 & Paul VanRaden 3 1 Animal Science.
Y. Masuda1, I. Misztal1, P. M. VanRaden2, and T. J. Lawlor3
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.
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.
Use Young Bulls More.
Development of Genomic GMACE
Presentation transcript:

1 GMACE Implementation Pete Sullivan, CDN & Paul VanRaden*, USDA

2 Genomics Timeline K SNP chips developed by NLD, USA 2008Unofficial GEBV provided within country 2008Interbull Genomics Task Force formed 2009Official GEBV in several countries 2009Genomic MACE methods developed 2010Software provided to Interbull Centre 2010Research on actual GEBVs beginning ????GMACE test run and implementation

3 EBV Exchange History  Conversion formulas  Exporting country j computes EBV j  Importing country i converts EBV i = a + b EBV j  MACE  Countries each send EBV j, receive EBV i from Interbull  Standard formats, 2n vs. n 2 file transfers, less labor  Combines information from daughters in all countries  Trend validation introduced  2010-???? Genomic MACE  Countries send young and old bull GEBV j to Interbull  GEBV j combine information using traditional A -1  Validation tests revised, market barriers removed

4 Young Bulls

5 Genotype Exchanges  Combine genotypes within country groups  North America  New Zealand and Ireland  EuroGenomics  Many small countries are currently excluded  Combine reference genotypes worldwide  Brown Swiss project at Interbull  Other breeds less organized  Holstein global exchange could add reliability  Multi-country genotype evaluation is theoretically better than Genomic MACE

6 Objectives  Compare equations for  MACE, GMACE and multi-country genotype evaluation (mtGEN)  Deregression methods, daughter equivalents  Demonstrate using simulated BSW  9 countries, 8,073 proven bulls, 120 young  Same data as 2009, but split into 2 groups:  CHE, USA, CAN, NLD, and NZL  DEU, ITA, FRA, and SVN  Update on actual GEBV test

7 De-regression  MACE: obtain y from EBV (a) and D  [D + A -1 k] a = D y  GMACE: obtain y g from GEBV (g), D, D g  [D+D g + A -1 k] g = (D+D g ) y g  D g includes daughter equivalents from genomics and from foreign daughters of genotyped bulls

8 Foreign Daughter Equivalents in D g  Foreign phenotypes included via MACE for foreign genotyped bulls  Example: CAN reference bulls on USA scale  Alternative: compute GEBV from only domestic data for Interbull  Twice as much work for national centers  Not checked as carefully, not recommended  Use only domestic bulls in GMACE?  Use multi-country deregression?

9 Multi-Country Evaluation  MACE: combine y across countries  [D + A -1 T -1 ] a = D y  GMACE: combine y g across countries  [D+D g + A -1 T -1 ] g = (D+D g ) y g  mtGEBV: Multi-country genotype exchange  [D + G -1 T -1 ] a = D y  T is genetic covariance matrix across countries  G is genomic relationship matrix for bulls

10 Multi-Country Evaluation  MACE: combine y across countries  [D + A -1 T -1 ] a = D y  GMACE: combine y g across countries  [E -1 + A -1 T -1 ] g = (E -1 ) y g  mtGEBV: Multi-country genotype exchange  [D + G -1 T -1 ] a = D y  E accounts for residual covariances from data sharing

11 Residual Correlations in GMACE  D and D g are diagonal matrices  Residual variances of de-regressed proofs  E accounts for shared genotypes, MACE EBV  Residuals covariances from shared foreign data Max correlation between genomic predictions % common (shared) data Genomic portion of variance ( = %EDC from genomics )

12 Example c ij for BSW CHEUSACANNLDNZLDEUITAFRASVN CHE USA CAN NLD NZL DEU ITA FRA SVN

13 3 Ways to Compute D g  D g1 : Compare genomic to traditional REL  Convert each to daughter equivalents  Subtract D from D total to get D g1  D g2 : Equate diagonals of matrix inverses  [D + D g2 + A -1 k] -1 = [D + G -1 k] -1  Solve for D g2 using math similar to Misztal and Wiggans (1988)  D g3 : Use constant D g3 for all animals  D g3 = Σ(traditional REL – parent average REL) / r  Choose r to make genomic REL = observed

14 Compare D g1, D g2, D g3  D g from North American Holsteins  Young bull means were 19.4, 19.1, and 22.3  Proven bull means were 23.5, 22.9, and 22.3  Young bull SD were 1.2, 1.4, and 0  Proven bull SD were 11.3, 11.3, and 0  D g1 and D g2 were correlated by.81  Formula D g1 used to test GMACE with BSW simulation

15 Reliabilities for Young BSW Bulls from USA CtryPAMACEn_GEBVr_GEBVGMACEmtGEN CHE USA CAN NLD NZL DEU ITA FRA SVN n_GEBV = national GEBV, r_GEBV = regional GEBV

16 GMACE Reliability  MACE reliability approximation  Harris and Johnson, 1998  Within-country progeny absorptions  No residual correlations between countries  GMACE reliability approximation  Similar to MACE approximation, except  Multi-country progeny absorptions  Residual correlations from genomic data sharing

17 Sire-Dam or MGS Pedigree?  Software tested with animal model  Traditional MACE uses sire-MGS  Conversion to AM-MACE planned  Initial study in NLD (van der Linde, 2005)  Pilot study at Interbull (Fikse, 2008)  All countries supply sire-dam pedigree  Animal model GMACE recommended  Option to include cow GEBVs in the future

18 Remaining GMACE Issues  Countries might report inconsistent D g  Actual D g should be similar if countries share genotypes and genetic correlations are high  If reported D g differ too much, GMACE gives sub-optimal (surprisingly poor) results  Restrict the variation of D g among countries? –Similar to bending correlation matrix T for MACE  Refine the GMACE equations?  Research is ongoing…

19 Formats  GEBVs for proven and young bulls  Same formats as 010, 015, 016, 017, 018, 019  Genomic daughter equivalents (GEDCs)  Truncated GEBVs for validation  Same formats, but 4 years less data  Validation test results (format 731)  Squared correlations, regressions, bias

Top Proven Bulls in Net Merit (adj)2010 NM$ DtrsTradGenDtrsGen O Man1, , OBrian Billion , Jet Stream , Alton ,142506

21 Top Young Bulls in NM$ (adj)2010 Net Merit NameTradGenDtrsTradGen Freddie Awesome Garrett Fortunato Logan

22 Freddie

23 Conclusions  GEBVs now official in several countries  GMACE software testing by Interbull  Accounts for data shared by country groups  Programs applied to simulated BSW GEBVs  Real HOL GEBVs sent Feb 22 by 9 countries  Genotype vs. GEBV exchange  Fuller use of data with genotype exchange  Lets smaller populations do genomic selection

24 Acknowledgements  Interbull genomics task force  Georgios Banos  Mario Calus  Vincent Ducrocq  João Dϋrr  Hossein Jorjani  Esa Mäntysaari  Zengting Liu

25