Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Published byCalvin Booker Modified over 9 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "2007 Paul VanRaden, George Wiggans, Jeff O’Connell, John Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Tad Sonstegard, and Curt Van Tassell Bovine Functional."— Presentation transcript:

1 2007 Paul VanRaden, George Wiggans, Jeff O’Connell, John Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Tad Sonstegard, and Curt Van Tassell Bovine Functional Genomics Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA Paul.VanRaden@ars.usda.gov Paul.VanRaden@ars.usda.gov 2008 Using Genomic Data to Improve Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluations

2 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (2)Paul VanRaden 2008 Acknowledgments  Genotyping and DNA extraction: USDA Bovine Functional Genomics Lab, U. Missouri, U. Alberta, GeneSeek, Genetics & IVF Institute, Genetic Visions, and Illumina  Computing: AIPL staff (Mel Tooker, Leigh Walton)  Funding: National Research Initiative grants – 2006-35205-16888, 2006-35205-16701 Agriculture Research Service Holstein and Jersey breed associations Contributors to Cooperative Dairy DNA Repository (CDDR)

3 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (3)Paul VanRaden 2008 CDDR Contributors  National Association of Animal Breeders (NAAB, Columbia, MO) ABS Global (DeForest, WI) Accelerated Genetics (Baraboo, WI) Alta (Balzac, AB, Canada) Genex (Shawano, WI) New Generation Genetics (Fort Atkinson, WI) Select Sires (Plain City, OH) Semex Alliance (Guelph, ON, Canada) Taurus-Service (Mehoopany, PA)

4 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (4)Paul VanRaden 2008 Genetic Markers: Changing Goals Past and Future  Determine if major genes exist (few)  Estimate sparse marker effects Only within family analysis  Find causative mutations (DGAT1, ABCG2)  Estimate dense effects across families  Implement routine predictions Increase REL with more genotypes Decrease cost with a selected SNP subset

5 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (5)Paul VanRaden 2008 Old Genetic Terms  Predicted transmitting ability and parent average PTA required progeny or own records PA included only parent data Genomics blurs the distinction  Reliability REL of PA could not exceed 50% because of Mendelian sampling Genomics can predict the other 50% REL limit at birth theoretically 99%

6 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (6)Paul VanRaden 2008 New Genetic Terms  Genomic relationships and inbreeding Actual genes in common (G) vs. expected genes in common (A) Wright’s correlation matrix or Henderson’s numerator relationship (covariance) matrix  Average relationship to population Expected future inbreeding (EFI) from A Genomic future inbreeding (GFI) from G  Daughter merit vs. son merit (X vs. Y)

7 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (7)Paul VanRaden 2008 Genomic Studies at Beltsville  174 markers, 1068 bulls, 8 sires Illinois, Israel, and AIPL 1991-1999  367 markers, 1415 bulls, 10 sires GEML, AIPL, Illinois, and Israel 1995-2004  38,416 markers, 19,105 animals BFGL, AIPL, Missouri, Canada, and Illumina Oct 2007- Dec 2008

8 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (8)Paul VanRaden 2008

9 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (9)Paul VanRaden 2008 SNP Edits & Counts  SNP available (Illumina SNP50 BeadChip) 58,336 Insufficient average number of beads1,389  Unscorable SNP4,360  Monomorphic in Holsteins 5,734  Minor allele frequency (MAF) of <5% 6,145  Not in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium 282  Highly correlated 2,010  Used for genomic prediction 38,416

10 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (10)Paul VanRaden 2008 Animal Genotype Edits  Require 90% call rate of SNP / animal  Check parent-progeny pair for conflicting homozygotes  If many conflicts or if parent not genotyped, check all genotyped animals for possible parent  Check maternal grandsire (MGS) for expected relationship  Check heterozygous SNP on X (only females)

11 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (11)Paul VanRaden 2008 Repeatability of Genotypes  2 laboratories genotyped the same 46 bulls  SNP scored the same by both labs About 1% missing genotypes per lab Mean of 37,624 out of 38,416 SNP (98% same) Range across animals of 20 to 2,244 SNP missing  SNP conflict (<0.003%, or 99.997% concordance) Mean of 0.9 SNP error per 38,416 Range of 0 to 7 SNP

12 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (12)Paul VanRaden 2008 Genotype Data for Elevation Chromosome 1 1000111220020012111011112111101111001121100020122002220111 1202101200211122110021112001111001011011010220011002201101 1200201101020222121122102010011100011220221222112021120120 2010020220200002110001120201122111211102201111000021220200 0221012020002211220111012100111211102112110020102100022000 2201000201100002202211022112101121110122220012112122200200 0200202020122211002222222002212111121002111120011011101120 0202220001112011010211121211102022100211201211001111102111 2110211122000101101110202200221110102011121111011202102102 1211011022122001211011211012022011002220021002110001110021 1021101110002220020221212110002220102002222121221121112002 0110202001222222112212021211210110012110110200220002001002 0001111011001211021212111201010121202210101011111021102112 2111111212111210110120011111021111011111220121012121101022 202021211222120222002121210121210201100111222121101

13 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (13)Paul VanRaden 2008 Genotype Data from Inbred Bull Chromosome 24 of Megastar 1021222101021021011102110112112211211002202000222020002020220 0000220020222202202000020020222222000020222200000220200002002 2002000000222200022220000000000020222022002000222020222220002 2022222222200002002202022202000200022000000002202220000002200 2020002222002020020020202220222222220222020002022022022220202 2202020202200022002220220022200000220200002002002000200222220 0022220202002220022202000020200000022222020200002002002222000 2022022220022000222202200222202020002202202222002220022000200 2202000002200220222000022000022000222202002222000220020020202 2020002220002220022202202200000220220020020020220002000222202 2002220020220200222202220000020220002020020202000220022000002 2022200202220200022002000200022002002000200220222220022022000 2000020002000020220020220200200002220000222002000200222000022 0220020022002202202020202020200022202000220200202202220220000 2020200002020200022222200222200020022022220000020220020200202 022022020200002000200220220002200

14 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (14)Paul VanRaden 2008 Close Inbreeding (F=14.7%): Double Grandson of Aerostar Aerostar Megastar Chromosome 24

15 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (15)Paul VanRaden 2008 Differences in G and A G = genomic and A = traditional relationships  Detected clones, identical twins, and duplicate samples  Detected incorrect DNA samples  Detected incorrect pedigrees  Identified correct source of DNA by genomic relationships with other animals

16 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (16)Paul VanRaden 2008 3 Formulas to Compute G  Sum products of genotypes (g) adjusted for allele frequency (p) G1 jk = ∑ (g ij -p i ) (g ik -p i ) / [2 ∑ p i (1-p i )]  Or individually weighted by p G2 jk = ∑ (g ij -p i ) (g ik -p i ) / 2p i (1-p i )  Or scaled by intercept (b 0 ) and regression (b 1 ) on A, using p = 0.5 G3 jk = [∑ (g ij - 0.5) (g ik - 0.5) – b 0 ] / b 1

17 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (17)Paul VanRaden 2008 Compare A with 3 formulas for G Actual Holstein Data Diagonals 1 of G FormulaMeanSDCorr. with A A1.05.0231.00 G11.00.0310.68 G20.98.0310.69 G31.13.0350.63 1 Diagonal = 1 + Inbreeding

18 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (18)Paul VanRaden 2008 Summary of G Formulas for Genomic Inbreeding  Correlations ranked G3 > G1 > G2 in simulation vs. G2 > G1 > G3 with real data (opposite)  G2 and G1 biased down, G3 up G1 and G2 can be adjusted toward A using b 0 and b 1, similar to G3 formula After adjusting, mean G1 = 1.08 and G2 = 1.09 compared to G3 = 1.13 and A = 1.05 G1 was unbiased in simulation using true rather than estimated frequencies

19 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (19)Paul VanRaden 2008 Genomic vs. Pedigree Inbreeding BullPedigree FGenomic F O Man4.515.8 Ramos2.311.5 Shottle5.611.9 Planet6.718.8 Earnit6.212.8 Nifty3.111.7 Correlation =.68

20 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (20)Paul VanRaden 2008 Genomic vs. Expected Future Inbreeding BullEFIGFI Blackstar7.9 Elevation7.67.4 Chief7.16.8 Emory7.06.9 RC Matt7.06.7 Juror7.06.7

21 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (21)Paul VanRaden 2008 Experimental Design Holstein, Jersey, and Brown Swiss breeds HOJEBS Predictor: Bulls born <19993,576743225 Cows with data202 Predicted: Bulls born >19991,759425118 Data from 2003 used to predict independent data from 2008

22 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (22)Paul VanRaden 2008 Genotyped Holsteins (n=6005) As of April 2008

23 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (23)Paul VanRaden 2008 Genomic Methods  Direct genomic evaluation Evaluate genotyped animals by summing effects of 38,416 genetic markers (SNPs)  Combined genomic evaluation Include phenotypes of non-genotyped ancestors by selection index  Transferred genomic evaluation Propagate info from genotyped animals to non-genotyped relatives by selection index

24 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (24)Paul VanRaden 2008 Reliability Gain 1 by Breed Yield traits and NM$ of young bulls TraitHOJEBS Net merit2393 Milk23110 Fat33155 Protein2241 Fat %434110 Protein %34295 1 Gain above parent average reliability ~35%

25 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (25)Paul VanRaden 2008 Reliability Gain by Breed Health and type traits of young bulls TraitHOJEBS Productive life18122 Somatic cell score21116 Dtr pregnancy rate165- Final score186- Udder depth35133 Foot angle1410- Stature2693

26 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (26)Paul VanRaden 2008 Reliability Gains for Proven Bulls  Proven bulls included in test had: >10 daughters in August 2003 >10% increase in reliability by 2008 Numbers of bulls in test ranged from 104 to 735 across traits Predicted the change in evaluation  Significant increase in R 2 (P <.001) for 26 of 27 traits

27 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (27)Paul VanRaden 2008 Value of Genotyping More Bulls BullsR 2 for Net Merit PredictorPredictedPAGenomicGain 11512518124 21302618179 260951082113 35761759112817

28 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (28)Paul VanRaden 2008 Value of Genotyping More SNP 9,604 (10K), 19,208 (20K), and 38,416 (40K) SNP REL of PA Genomic REL Trait10K20K40K Net Merit $30485053 Milk yield35535658 Fat yield35646668 Protein yield35545657 Productive Life27384145 SCS (mastitis)30454751 Dtr Preg Rate25373941

29 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (29)Paul VanRaden 2008 Simulated Results World Holstein Population  15,197 older and 5,987 younger bulls in Interbull file  40,000 SNPs and 10,000 QTLs  Provided timing, memory test  Reliability vs parent average REL REL = corr 2 (EBV, true BV) 80% vs 34% expected for young bulls 72% vs 30% observed in simulation

30 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (30)Paul VanRaden 2008 Marker Effects for Milk

31 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (31)Paul VanRaden 2008 Marker Effects for Net Merit

32 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (32)Paul VanRaden 2008 Major Gene on Chromosome 18 Net Merit, Productive Life, Calving Ease, Stature, Strength, Rump Width

33 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (33)Paul VanRaden 2008 Net Merit by Chromosome Planet - high Net Merit bull

34 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (34)Paul VanRaden 2008 X, Y, Pseudo-autosomal SNPs 487 SNPs 35 SNPs 0 SNPs 35 SNPs

35 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (35)Paul VanRaden 2008 SNPs on X Chromosome  Each animal has two evaluations: Expected genetic merit of daughters Expected genetic merit of sons Difference is sum of effects on X SD =.1 σ G, smaller than expected  Correlation with sire’s daughter vs. son PTA difference was significant (P<.0001), regression close to 1.0

36 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (36)Paul VanRaden 2008 Linear and Nonlinear Predictions  Linear model Infinitesimal alleles model: all SNP have normally distributed effects  Nonlinear models Model A: all SNP have effects, but with a heavy-tailed prior distribution Model B: some SNP have no effects, the rest are normally distributed Model AB: some SNP have no effect, the rest have a heavy-tailed prior

37 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (37)Paul VanRaden 2008 Regressions for marker allele effects

38 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (38)Paul VanRaden 2008 R of Linear and Nonlinear Genomic Predictions R 2 of Linear and Nonlinear Genomic Predictions Model TraitLinearABABAB Net merit28.228.427.6 Milk47.248.546.747.3 Fat41.844.241.543.6 Protein47.547.046.846.6 Fat %55.363.357.563.9 Longevity25.627.425.426.4 Mastitis37.338.337.337.6

39 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (39)Paul VanRaden 2008 Genetic Progress  Assume 60% REL for net merit Sires mostly 2 instead of 6 years old Dams of sons mostly heifers with 60% REL instead of cows with phenotype and genotype (66% REL)  Progress could increase by >50% 0.37 vs. 0.23 genetic SD per year Reduce generation interval more than accuracy

40 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (40)Paul VanRaden 2008 Low Density SNP Chip  Choose 384 marker subset SNP that best predict net merit Parentage markers to be shared  Use for initial screening of cows 40% benefit of full set for 10% cost Could get larger benefits using haplotyping (Habier et al., 2008)

41 National Swine Improvement Federation Symposium, Dec. 2008 (41)Paul VanRaden 2008 Conclusions  100X more markers allows MAS across rather than within families  10X more bulls allows estimation of much smaller QTL effects (HO)  Reliability increases by tracing actual genes inherited instead of expected average from parents

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

Similar presentations

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

2007 Paul VanRaden, Mel Tooker, and Nicolas Gengler Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD, USA, and Gembloux Agricultural U., Belgium
Perspectives from Human Studies and Low Density Chip Jeffrey R. O’Connell University of Maryland School of Medicine October 28, 2008.

Perspectives from Human Studies and Low Density Chip Jeffrey R. O’Connell University of Maryland School of Medicine October 28, 2008.
Genomic imputation and evaluation using 1074 high density Holstein genotypes P. M. VanRaden 1, D. J. Null 1 *, G.R. Wiggans 1, T.S. Sonstegard 2, E.E.

Genomic imputation and evaluation using 1074 high density Holstein genotypes P. M. VanRaden 1, D. J. Null 1 *, G.R. Wiggans 1, T.S. Sonstegard 2, E.E.
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Select Sires’

George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Select Sires’
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2009 G.R. WiggansCroatian.

G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2009 G.R. WiggansCroatian.
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, George Wiggans, Jeff O’Connell, John Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Tad Sonstegard, and Curt Van Tassell Bovine Functional.
G.R. Wiggans 1, T.S. Sonstegard 1, P.M. VanRaden 1, L.K. Matukumalli 1,2, R.D. Schnabel 3, J.F. Taylor 3, J.P. Chesnais 4, F.S. Schenkel 5, and C.P. Van.

G.R. Wiggans 1, T.S. Sonstegard 1, P.M. VanRaden 1, L.K. Matukumalli 1,2, R.D. Schnabel 3, J.F. Taylor 3, J.P. Chesnais 4, F.S. Schenkel 5, and C.P. Van.
Wiggans, 2013RL meeting, Aug. 15 (1) Dr. George R. Wiggans, Acting Research Leader Bldg. 005, Room 306, BARC-West 301-504-8334 (main office); 301-504-8092.

Wiggans, 2013RL meeting, Aug. 15 (1) Dr. George R. Wiggans, Acting Research Leader Bldg. 005, Room 306, BARC-West (main office);
2007 Paul VanRaden 1, Curt Van Tassell 2, George Wiggans 1, Tad Sonstegard 2, Jeff O’Connell 1, Bob Schnabel 3, Jerry Taylor 3, and Flavio Schenkel 4,

2007 Paul VanRaden 1, Curt Van Tassell 2, George Wiggans 1, Tad Sonstegard 2, Jeff O’Connell 1, Bob Schnabel 3, Jerry Taylor 3, and Flavio Schenkel 4,
Chuanyu Sun Paul VanRaden National Association of Animal breeders, USA Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA Increasing long term response by selecting.

Chuanyu Sun Paul VanRaden National Association of Animal breeders, USA Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USA Increasing long term response by selecting.
2007 Paul VanRaden 1, George Wiggans 1, Curt Van Tassell 2, Tad Sonstegard 2, Jeff O’Connell 1, Bob Schnabel 3, Jerry Taylor 3, and Flavio Schenkel 4,

2007 Paul VanRaden 1, George Wiggans 1, Curt Van Tassell 2, Tad Sonstegard 2, Jeff O’Connell 1, Bob Schnabel 3, Jerry Taylor 3, and Flavio Schenkel 4,
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2010 G.R. WiggansDCRC.

G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2010 G.R. WiggansDCRC.
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.

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

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

G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD G.R. WiggansAg Discovery.
Wiggans, 2013SRUC Imputation (1) Dr. George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 20705-2350,

Wiggans, 2013SRUC Imputation (1) Dr. George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD ,
 PTA mobility was highly correlated with udder composite.  PTA mobility showed a moderate, positive correlation with production, productive life, and.

 PTA mobility was highly correlated with udder composite.  PTA mobility showed a moderate, positive correlation with production, productive life, and.
2007 Paul VanRaden, Curt Van Tassell, George Wiggans, Tad Sonstegard, and Jeff O’Connell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory and Bovine Functional Genomics.

2007 Paul VanRaden, Curt Van Tassell, George Wiggans, Tad Sonstegard, and Jeff O’Connell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory and Bovine Functional Genomics.
Wiggans, 201410 th WCGALP (1) G.R. Wiggans*, T.A. Cooper, D.J. Null, and P.M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research.

Wiggans, th WCGALP (1) G.R. Wiggans*, T.A. Cooper, D.J. Null, and P.M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google