Whole genome selection and the 2000 bull project at USMARC Larry Kuehn Research Geneticist.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
DNA Testing and Marker Assisted Selection R. Mark Thallman U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Clay Center, NE.
Advertisements

Understanding Conventional and Genomic EPDs
Professor N. Nelson Blue Mtn. Agriculture College.
Pooling DNA to Investigate Cattle Infertility Tara McDaneld USDA/ARS Meat Animal Research Center Clay Center, NE, 68933, USA.
West Virginia University Extension Service Genetics in Beef Cattle Wayne R. Wagner.
Meeting Consumer Demands through Genetic Selection: The NCBA Carcass Merit Project Dan W. Moser on behalf of the CMP Team.
Matt Spangler University of Nebraska- Lincoln DEVELOPMENT OF GENOMIC EPD: EXPANDING TO MULTIPLE BREEDS IN MULTIPLE WAYS.
Multiple Breed Evaluation Can MBE enhance crossbreeding? John Pollak Cornell University Director, NBCEC.
Detection of QTL in beef cattle Eduardo Casas U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, Nebraska.
From sequence data to genomic prediction
BrownBagger October National Program for Genetic Improvement of Feed Efficiency in Beef Cattle
Develop 50K prediction equation suitable for estimation of Molecular Breeding Values (MBV) for Limousin and LimFlex (hybrid) animals Use 50K imputed genotypes.
Carcass EPD: Where are we, and where are we going? Dan W. Moser Dept. of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University.
Colorado Agriscience Curriculum
Whole Genome Sequencing: Background and View of Current Efforts Larry Kuehn, Ph.D. Research Geneticist USDA, ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center The.
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.
Training, Validation, and Target Populations Training, Validation, and Target Populations Mark Thallman, Kristina Weber, Larry Kuehn, Warren Snelling,
Beef Relationships using 50K Chip Information L.A. Kuehn, J.W. Keele, G.L. Bennett, T.G. McDaneld, T.P.L. Smith, W.M. Snelling, T.S. Sonstegard, and R.M.
How Genomics is changing Business and Services of Associations Dr. Josef Pott, Weser-Ems-Union eG, Germany.
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD Georgetown Ag Systems.
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.
Matt Spangler Beef Genetics Specialist University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2010 G.R. WiggansDCRC.
Van Eenennaam 11/17/2010 Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education Alison Van Eenennaam, Ph.D. Cooperative Extension Specialist Animal Biotechnology.
Straightbreeding – A simple way to reduce your bottomline D. A. Daley California State University, Chico NCBCEC Brown Bagger Session October 17, 2012.
Using EPDs in Selection Stolen and edited by: Brandon Freel and Daniel Powell Originally compiled by Colorado Agriscience Curriculum.
Selection for Lifetime Production
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD G.R. WiggansAg Discovery.
The Brown Bagger Beef Cattle Adaptability Current Tools of Assessment John L. Evans Oklahoma State University 1.
1 Application of Molecular Technologies in Beef Production Dan W. Moser, Ph.D Department of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University, Manhattan.
Brown Bagger – Beef Cattle Genetics: Fine Tuning Selection Decisions 1 How Do I Decide What Traits are Important? Carcass/Ultrasound EPDs Bob Weaber GRA-Cornell.
MBE, Update John Pollak Cornell University. Objectives Build a national pedigree file and database To achieve a unified national evaluation To migrate.
Multi-breed Evaluation J. Keith Bertrand University of Georgia, Athens.
Bovine Genomics The Technology and its Applications Gerrit Kistemaker Chief Geneticist, Canadian Dairy Network (CDN) Many slides were created by.
Genomics. Finding True Genetic Merit 2 Dam EPD Sire EPD Pedigree Estimate EPD TRUE Progeny Difference Mendelian Sampling Effect Adapted from Dr. Bob Weaber.
NBCEC BROWN BAGGER OCTOBER 8, 2014 Jack Ward AHA, Director of Breed Improvement.
Animal Genomics and Biotechnology Education “Economic value of genomic information: Sire and commercial heifer selection" Van Eenennaam 10/19/2011.
Quaas, Thallman & Van Eenennaam 20 April 2006 Choctaw, MS Beef Improvement Federation (NBCEC Validation Update) Commercial DNA Tests NBCEC Validations.
ACROSS BREED EPD TABLES FOR THE YEAR 2006 ADJUSTED TO THE BIRTH YEAR OF 2004 L. Dale Van Vleck and Larry V. Cundiff MARC-ARS-USDA Lincoln and Clay Center,
Bob Weaber, Ph.D. Associate Professor/Cow-Calf Extension Specialist Kansas State University
Exploring the Beef Industry SECHS Mr. Pullom Fall 2011.
Nuts and Bolts of Genetic Improvement Genetic Model Predicting Genetic Levels Increase Commercial Profitability Lauren Hyde Jackie Atkins Wade Shafer Fall.
Session 4 – Part 1 Status update on genomically enhanced genetic evaluation by breeds Dr. Matt Spangler, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
How Does Additional Information Impact Accuracy? Dan W. Moser Department of Animal Sciences and Industry Kansas State University, Manhattan
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Select Sires’
Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding April 27, 2010 Interpretation of genomic breeding values from a unified, one-step national evaluation Research project.
Future Research in Genomics Curt Van Tassell AIPL Centennial Celebration November 28, 2008.
EPD’s: What They Are and How to Use Them. Introduction EPDs = Expected Progeny Differences Progeny = Offspring, usually the offspring of the sire Differences.
National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium Vision for Genetic Evaluation.
Breeding Objectives for Terminal Sires Michael MacNeil USDA ARS Miles City, MT.
What is an EPD? Expected Progeny Difference
Feed Efficiency Genetic Projects. Terms Gain/Feed = Feed Efficiency FE Feed/Gain = Feed Conversion FC: -FE Residual Feed Intake RFI Net Feed Intake NFI:-RFI.
National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium Brown Bagger Seminar Carcass EPDs Integrating Carcass and Ultrasound October 22, 2008 Sally L. Northcutt Genetic.
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.
Jack Ward American Hereford Association October 31, 2012.
Using EPDs in Selection Edited by: Jessica Hawley & Brandon Freel Originally compiled by Colorado Agriscience Curriculum.
Evaluation & Use of Expected Progeny Differences in Beef Cattle Dr. Fred Rayfield Livestock Specialist Georgia Agricultural Education To accompany lesson.
What gains can we expect from Genetics?
Across Breed EPD and multi-breed genetic evaluation developments
Use of DNA information in Genetic Programs.
Evaluation & Use of Expected Progeny Differences in Beef Cattle
Update on Multi-Breed Genetic Evaluation
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.
Genomic Selection in Dairy Cattle
American Simmental Association
Presentation transcript:

Whole genome selection and the 2000 bull project at USMARC Larry Kuehn Research Geneticist

DNA Technology Genome is highly complex Difficult to understand, manipulate Historically, oversold to producers Need patience, research support, partnerships

Definitions Genome is the whole set of DNA Genetic Markers track regions of the genome –May be linked/explain phenotypes we observe A SNP is a type of genetic marker –Single Nucleotide Polymorphism A Genotype is any pair of markers/marker groups

Whole Genome Selection (WGS) Use genotypes of thousands of genetic markers, like SNP, to predict breeding values (EPDs) Like marker sets for traits being offered now but with much more density Genetic differences in DNA that cause phenotypic differences likely close to many markers As of now unproven (but preliminary analyses look promising)

Problem: Whole-genome selection seems to be big leap technology that needs to either be implemented in a big way or not at all. Early adopters are likely to receive little benefit until a critical mass of influential and extensively phenotyped animals is tested and the data is analyzed jointly through NCE.

Whole Genome Selection So is now the time? –We think so! –Multiple reasons why the time is right

Illumina Infinium Bovine BeadChip ~ 50,000 SNP markers across the bovine genome -On average SNP every >60,000 base pair - Discovery SNP includes many breeds BARC (ARS) USMARC University of Missouri University of Alberta Reason 1: Technology

Reason 2: Data/Cattle About 3,000 hd of pedigreed animals with extensive phenotypes at USMARC genotyped using the 50K chip Primarily descendants of Germplasm Evaluation (GPE) Cycle VII –Angus, Hereford, Red Angus –Charolais, Gelbvieh, Simmental, Limousin

Reason 2: Data/Cattle Some phenotypes difficult to measure in industry setting –Feed intake –Carcass data –Slice shear force –Structure –Puberty and productivity –Disease diagnostic records

Reason 3: People Collaborative effort between researchers and breed representatives to implement WGS for the industry

2000 Bull Project Collaborative effort DNA samples from influential or upcoming bulls in 16 most prominent breeds with a genetic evaluation –Running on 50K chip Extensively phenotyped animals from USMARC used as training data set –Establish relationships of markers to phenotypes and use results to predict potential of 2000 industry bulls

2000 Bull Project Objectives: –Extend genetic predictions from USMARC phenotypes to industry bulls EPDs developed and delivered to breed associations (they decide use) Hopefully leads to further bull genotyping –Validate the effectiveness of WGS using EPDs from the 2000 bulls relative to USMARC data on common traits (e.g., weaning weight) –Improve accuracy of EPDs for common traits

2000 Bull Project Breed associations responsible for selecting sires –High accuracy sires (verify the process) –Influential sires (greater gain from novel traits) Number of bulls from each breed dependent on breed size –Maximum of 400 sires from largest breed

Potential pitfalls We don’t know the process of WGS will work May need more than 50,000 markers Need to develop complex computational methods – :1.7 million genotypes at USMARC – :~300 million genotypes expected from chip results

Potential looks good Simulated accuracy of genetic prediction: SimulatedEPDWhole Genome Sires71%80% Progeny with no records 41%69% Unrelated with no records 0%55%

SNP associations Birth Weight Weaning Weight Milk Postweaning gain Ribeye area Marbling score

Contributors Bovine SNP Consortium -- ARS, BARC -- U. Missouri -- U. Alberta -- ARS, USMARC USMARC -- Tim Smith -- John Keele -- Mark Allan -- Warren Snelling -- Mark Thallman -- Gary Bennett -- Larry Kuehn -- Tara McDaneld ARS NPS -- Steve Kappes NBCEC Breed Associations