John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 20705-2350, USA Applications.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

John B. Cole* and Paul M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD

Advertisements

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

John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD , USA New applications.

2007 Paul VanRaden and Jeff O’Connell Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD U MD College of Medicine, Baltimore, MD

Use of Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) in Dairy Sire Selection Fabio Monteiro de Rezende Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) - Brazil.

Bull selection based on QTL for specific environments Fabio Monteiro de Rezende Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) - Brazil.

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

BEEF CATTLE GENETICS By David R. Hawkins Michigan State University.

How Genomics is changing Business and Services of Associations Dr. Josef Pott, Weser-Ems-Union eG, Germany.

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.

Principles of Selecting and Mating Farm Animals (Chapter 9) Genetic improvement of farm animals –Involves selection (choosing the best to be parents) –Involves.

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,

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

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.

John B. Cole* and Paul M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement 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 1, Daniel J. Null *1, Chuanyu Sun 2, and Paul M. VanRaden 1 1 Animal Genomics and Improvement 2 Sexing Technologies Laboratory Navasota, TX.

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

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

John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD New Tools for.

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

2005 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD An Example from Dairy.

2005 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA Selection for.

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

2007 J.B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluation.

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

2007 Melvin 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 Best prediction.

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

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

John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD New tools for.

Wiggans, 2014ASAS-ADSA-CSAS Joint Annual Meeting (1) G.R. Wiggans* 1, T.A. Cooper 1, P.M. VanRaden 1, D.J. Null 1, J.L. Hutchison 1, O.M. Meland 2, M.E.

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

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

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 John B. Cole USDA Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Beltsville, MD, USA 2008 Data Collection Ratings and Best Prediction.

H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD NDHIA 2009 meeting.

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.

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

2003 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic Evaluation.

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.

2005 Paul VanRaden and Mel Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic.

H. D. Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD DRMS annual.

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.

G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD G.R. WiggansADSA 18.

2007 Paul VanRaden, Dan Null, Katie Olson, Jana Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD National Association of Animal Breeders, Columbia,

2001 ADSA Indianapolis 2001 (1) Heterosis and Breed Differences for Yield and Somatic Cell Scores of US Dairy Cattle in the 1990’s. PAUL VANRADEN Animal.

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA 2008 New.

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

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

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.

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

Strategies to Incorporate Genomic Prediction Into Population-Wide Genetic Evaluations Nicolas Gengler 1,2 & Paul VanRaden 3 1 Animal Science.

Gene editing algorithm

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

Correlations Among Measures of Dairy Cattle Fertility and Longevity

A National Sire Fertility Index

Economics of Reproduction: the Quality of the Pregnancy

Presentation transcript:

John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD , USA Applications of haplotypes in dairy farm management

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (2) Cole Introduction l Genomic selection increases selection response by reducing generation interval l Bulls were genotyped first due to cost l Now we have genotypes for many cows l What can we do with those data that we couldn’t do before?

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (3) Cole O-Style Haplotypes Chromosome 15

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (4) Cole Genetic merit of Jersey bulls Breeding Year Net Merit ($)

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (5) Cole Many cows have been genotyped Evaluation Date (YYMM) Genotypes

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (6) Cole Haplotypes for farm management l Many uses other than genetic evaluation w Culling decisions w Mating strategies w Identification of new recessive defects w Phenotypic prediction ARS Image Number K7964-1

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (7) Cole Input costs are rising quickly M:FP = price of 1 kg of milk / price of 1 kg of a 16% protein ration Month Milk:Feed Price Ratio July 2012 Grain Costs Soybeans: $15.60/bu (€0.46/kg) Corn: $ 7.36/bu (€0.23/kg)

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (8) Cole Optimal culling decisions l Low density genotypes on females can be used to guide early culling decisions w 165,526 genotyped cows in August 2012 l Sexed semen increases heifer population from which to select l What animals should be retained and what animals culled?

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (9) Cole Calves selected EBV selected calves (pre- ranked, 35% rel.) Optimal fraction calves tested with genomic test (65% rel.) EBV selected calves (after genomic testing) Cost of genomic testing per selected calf NPV of selected calves 100%€0-- 90%€ €46€13€52 80%€ €78€14€94 70%€ €113€22€136 60%€ €145€25€176 50%€ €179€30€218 Testing and selecting heifer calves EBV = estimated breeding value, NPV = net present value

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (10) Cole Bottom line economics No sexed2x sexedNo sexed2x sexed Pre-ranking calf reliability0% 35% Genomic testing policy Statistics (€/cow/year): Profit without heifer calf value Heifer calves sold NPV calves before pre-ranking NPV calves due to pre-ranking Added NPV from genomic testing Cost of genomic testing Heifer calf value Profit with heifer calf value K test (€36.50, 65% reliability)

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (11) Cole Farmers want new genomic tools

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (12) Cole New haplotype query Cole, J.B., and Null, D.J AIPL Research Report GENOMIC2: Use of chromosomal predicted transmitting abilities. Available:

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (13) Cole Simulated matings l Mated all genotyped Jersey bulls and cows in a fully cross-classified design w 5,877 bulls and 15,553 cows − 91,404,981 matings w Crossovers, independent assortment w 100 replicates per mate pair l Mean, variance, skewness, and kurtosis

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (14) Cole Distribution of progeny DGV Distribution of 6,000,000 randomly sampled simulated matings.

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (15) Cole Most extreme groups for progeny DGV

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (16) Cole Most extreme groups for DGV variance

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (17) Cole Most- and least-skewed progeny groups

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (18) Cole Most- and least-kurtotic progeny groups

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (19) Cole Within-herd analysis l Selected 3 Jersey herds w Ranked by number of genotyped animals and percentage of 50K genotypes l Compared actual with possible matings l Could the herd manager have selected better mate pairs?

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (20) Cole Comparison to actual matings l Simulated matings were compared to 220 actual matings from 142 mate pairs l Three strategies tested in simulation w Mating plans using traditional and genomic PTA as in Pryce et al. (2012) w Selection of mate pairs with greatest mean DGV w Bulls limited to 10 matings

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (21) Cole Sire portfolios Bulls used in herd Cows in herd Genotyped calves Consider each bull as a mate for each cow using different strategies. Actual calves born to these parents. Simulated calves

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (22) Cole Actual DGV and inbreeding Similar distribution of DGV Different distribution of relationships – different sire portfolios

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (23) Cole Herd 1 results Actual 1 Best PTA 2 Best gPTA 2 Best DGV 2 Genetic value Difference− SE(Genetic) Inbreeding Min <0.001 Max Correlation− Results from 94 genotyped offspring of 62 cows. 2 Simulated matings of 62 cows to a portfolio of 54 bulls (n=3348 combinations).

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (24) Cole Herd 2 results Actual 1 Best PTA 2 Best gPTA 2 Best DGV 2 Genetic value Difference− SE(Genetic) Inbreeding Min Max Correlation− Results from 31 genotyped offspring of 19 cows. 2 Simulated matings of 19 cows to a portfolio of 31 bulls (n=589 combinations).

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (25) Cole Herd 3 results Actual 1 Best PTA 2 Best gPTA 2 Best DGV 2 Genetic value Difference− SE(Genetic) Inbreeding Min Max Correlation− Results from 95 genotyped offspring of 38 cows. 2 Simulated matings of 38 cows to a portfolio of 25 bulls (n=950 combinations).

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (26) Cole Specific combining ability l Quantitative model w Must solve equation for each mate pair l Genomic model w Compute dominance for each locus w Haplotype the population w Simulate matings and compute average dominance

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (27) Cole Inbreeding effects l Are inbreeding effects distributed uniformly across the genome? w Where are the recessives and the over- and under-dominant loci? l Inbreeding changes transcription levels and gene expression profiles in D. melanogaster (Kristensen et al., 2005)

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (28) Cole Precision inbreeding l Runs of homozygosity may indicate genomic regions where inbreeding is acceptable l Can we target those regions by selecting among haplotypes? Dominance Recessives Under-dominance

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (29) Cole Phenotypic prediction l Can haplotypes be used to improve phenotypic predictions? w Models with GxE are better predictors (Bryant et al., 2005) w Models with A+D better than records from relatives (Lee et al., 2008) w Disease risk can be predicted even if mechanisms unknown (Wray et al., 2005)

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (30) Cole Unknown phenotypes l Susceptibility to disease w e.g., Johne’s is difficult to diagnose l Differential response to management w e.g., Feed conversion efficiency l Can simulate more plausible outcomes with haplotypes than genotypes w Chromosome transmitted, not means

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (31) Cole Loss-of-function mutations l At least 100 LoF per human genome surveyed (MacArthur et al., 2010) w Of those genes ~20 are completely inactivated w Uncharacterized LoF variants likely to have phenotypic effects l How can mating programs deal with this?

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (32) Cole Novel haplotypes affecting fertility Name Chrom- osome Loca- tion Carrier Freq Earliest Known Ancestors HH Pawnee Farm Arlinda Chief HH Willowholme Mark Anthony HH Glendell Arlinda Chief, Gray View Skyliner JH Observer Chocolate Soldier BH West Lawn Stretch Improver

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (33) Cole Precision mating l Eliminate undesirable haplotypes w Detection at low allele frequencies l Avoid carrier-to-carrier matings w Easy with few recessives, difficult with many recessives l Include in selection indices w Requires many inputs

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (34) Cole Threats to continued progress Provisional US patent filed on 20 NOV 2010 after the 9WCGALP in Leipzig – no disclosure at that time! This MS with similar ideas was submitted 22 SEP 2010 and published on 12 APR Why share?

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (35) Cole Conclusions l Selecting calves based on genomic tests can increase farm profitability l Simple mate selection using haplotypes is as good or better than other strategies l We may be able to do interesting things with inbreeding and prediction l Tools for handling many new recessives in breeding programs are needed

63 rd EAAP Meeting, Bratislava, Slovakia, 29 August 2012 (36) Cole Acknowledgments Paul VanRaden, Dan Null, and Tabatha Cooper Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, ARS, USDA Beltsville, MD Albert De Vries Department of Animal Sciences University of Florida, Gainesville, FL David Galligan School of Veterinary Medicine University of Pennsylvania Kennett Square, PA