Entity

Time filter

Source Type


Su G.,University of Aarhus | Madsen P.,University of Aarhus | Nielsen U.S.,Danish Agricultural Advisory Service | Mantysaari E.A.,Mtt Agrifood Research Finland | And 3 more authors.
Journal of Dairy Science | Year: 2012

This study investigated the accuracy of direct genomic breeding values (DGV) using a genomic BLUP model, genomic enhanced breeding values (GEBV) using a one-step blending approach, and GEBV using a selection index blending approach for 15 traits of Nordic Red Cattle. The data comprised 6,631 bulls of which 4,408 bulls were genotyped using Illumina Bovine SNP50 BeadChip (Illumina, San Diego, CA). To validate reliability of genomic predictions, about 20% of the youngest genotyped bulls were taken as test data set. Deregressed proofs (DRP) were used as response variables for genomic predictions. Reliabilities of genomic predictions in the validation analyses were measured as squared correlations between DRP and genomic predictions corrected for reliability of DRP, based on the bulls in the test data sets. A set of weighting (scaling) factors was used to construct the combined relationship matrix among genotyped and nongenotyped bulls for one-step blending, and to scale DGV and its expected reliability in the selection index blending. Weighting (scaling) factors had a small influence on reliabilities of GEBV, but a large influence on the variation of GEBV. Based on the validation analyses, averaged over the 15 traits, the reliability of DGV for bulls without daughter records was 11.0 percentage points higher than the reliability of conventional pedigree index. Further gain of 0.9 percentage points was achieved by combining information from conventional pedigree index using the selection index blending, and gain of 1.3 percentage points was achieved by combining information of genotyped and nongenotyped bulls simultaneously applying the one-step blending. These results indicate that genomic selection can greatly improve the accuracy of preselection for young bulls in Nordic Red population, and the one-step blending approach is a good alternative to predict GEBV in practical genetic evaluation program. © 2012 American Dairy Science Association. Source


Sun C.,University of Aarhus | Sun C.,China Agricultural University | Madsen P.,University of Aarhus | Lund M.S.,University of Aarhus | And 3 more authors.
Journal of Animal Science | Year: 2010

This study investigated the improvement in genetic evaluation of fertility traits by using production traits as secondary traits (MILK = 305-d milk yield, FAT = 305-d fat yield, and PROT = 305-d protein yield). Data including 471,742 records from first lactations of Denmark Holstein cows, covering the years of inseminations during first lactations from 1995 to 2004, were analyzed. Six fertility traits (i.e., interval in days from calving to first insemination, calving interval, days open, interval in days from first to last insemination, numbers of inseminations per conception, and nonreturn rate within 56 d after first service) were analyzed using single-and multiple-trait sire models including 1 or 3 production traits. Model stability was evaluated by correlation between EBV from 2 sub-data sets (DATAA and DATAB). Model predictive ability was assessed by the correlation between EBV from training data (DATAA or DATAB) and daughter performance (yield deviation, defined as average of daughter-records adjusted for nongenetic effects) from test data (DATAB or DATAA) in a cross-validation procedure, and correlation between EBV obtained from the whole data set (DATAT) and from a reduced data set (DATAC1, which only contained the first crop daughters) for proven bulls. In addition, the superiority of the models was evaluated by expected reliability of EBV, calculated from the prediction error variance of EBV. Based on these criteria, the models combining milk production traits showed better model stability and predictive ability than single-trait models for all the fertility traits, except for nonreturn rate within 56 d after first service. The stability and predictive ability for the model including MILK or PROT were similar to the model including all 3 milk production traits and better than the model including FAT. In addition, it was found that single-trait models underestimated genetic trend of fertility traits. These results suggested that genetic evaluation of fertility traits would be improved using a multiple-trait model including MILK or PROT. © 2010 American Society of Animal Science. Source


Makgahlela M.L.,University of Helsinki | Makgahlela M.L.,Mtt Agrifood Research Finland | Stranden I.,University of Helsinki | Stranden I.,Mtt Agrifood Research Finland | And 3 more authors.
Journal of Dairy Science | Year: 2013

Different approaches of calculating genomic measures of relationship were explored and compared with pedigree relationships (A) within and across base breeds in a crossbreed population, using genotypes for 38,194 loci of 4,106 Nordic Red dairy cattle. Four genomic relationship matrices (G) were calculated using either observed allele frequencies (AF) across breeds or within-breed AF. The G matrices were compared separately when the AF were estimated in the observed and in the base population. Breedwise AF in the current and base population were estimated using linear regression models of individual genotypes on breed composition. Different G matrices were further used to predict direct estimated genomic values using a genomic BLUP model. Higher variability existed in the diagonal elements of G across breeds (standard deviation. = 0.06, on average) compared with A (0.01). The use of simple observed AF across base breeds to compute G increased coefficients for individuals in distantly related populations. Estimated breedwise AF reduced differences in coefficients similarly within and across populations. The variability of the current adjusted G matrix decreased from 0.055 to 0.035 when breedwise AF were estimated from the base breed population. The direct estimated genomic values and their validation reliabilities were, however, unaffected by AF used to compute G when estimated with a genomic BLUP model, due to inclusion of breed means in the model. In multibreed populations, G adjusted with breedwise AF from the founder population may provide more consistency among relationship coefficients between genotyped and ungenotyped individuals in an across-breed single-step evaluation. © 2013 American Dairy Science Association. Source


Makgahlela M.L.,University of Helsinki | Makgahlela M.L.,Mtt Agrifood Research Finland | Stranden I.,University of Helsinki | Stranden I.,Mtt Agrifood Research Finland | And 3 more authors.
Journal of Dairy Science | Year: 2014

The observed low accuracy of genomic selection in multibreed and admixed populations results from insufficient linkage disequilibrium between markers and trait loci. Failure to remove variation due to the population structure may also hamper the prediction accuracy. We verified if accounting for breed origin of alleles in the calculation of genomic relationships would improve the prediction accuracy in an admixed population. Individual breed proportions derived from the pedigree were used to estimate breed-wise allele frequencies (AF). Breed-wise and across-breed AF were estimated from the currently genotyped population and also in the base population. Genomic relationship matrices (G) were subsequently calculated using across-breed (GAB) and breed-wise (GBW) AF estimated in the currently genotyped and also in the base population. Unified relationship matrices were derived by combining different G with pedigree relationships in the evaluation of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) for genotyped and ungenotyped animals. The validation reliabilities and inflation of GEBV were assessed by a linear regression of deregressed breeding value (deregressed proofs) on GEBV, weighted by the reliability of deregressed proofs. The regression coefficients (b1) from GAB ranged from 0.76 for milk to 0.90 for protein. Corresponding b1 terms from GBW ranged from 0.72 to 0.88. The validation reliabilities across 4 evaluations with different G were generally 36, 40, and 46% for milk, protein, and fat, respectively. Unexpectedly, validation reliabilities were generally similar across different evaluations, irrespective of AF used to compute G. Thus, although accounting for the population structure in GBW tends to simplify the blending of genomic- and pedigree-based relationships, it appeared to have little effect on the validation reliabilities. © 2014 American Dairy Science Association. Source


Makgahlela M.L.,University of Helsinki | Makgahlela M.L.,Mtt Agrifood Research Finland | Mantysaari E.A.,Mtt Agrifood Research Finland | Stranden I.,Mtt Agrifood Research Finland | And 5 more authors.
Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics | Year: 2013

The current study evaluates reliability of genomic predictions in selection candidates using multi-trait random regression model, which accounts for interactions between marker effects and breed of origin in the Nordic Red dairy cattle (RDC). The population structure of the RDC is admixed. Data consisted of individual animal breed proportions calculated from the full pedigree, deregressed proofs (DRP) of published estimated breeding values (EBV) for yield traits and genotypic data for 37 595 single nucleotide polymorphic markers. The analysed data included 3330 bulls in the reference population and 812 bulls that were used for validation. Direct genomic breeding values (DGV) were estimated using the model under study, which accounts for breed effects and also with GBLUP, which assume uniform population. Validation reliability was calculated as a coefficient of determination from weighted regression of DRP on DGV (rDRP,DGV 2), scaled by the mean reliability of DRP. Using the breed-specific model increased the reliability of DGV by 2 and 3% for milk and protein, respectively, when compared to homogeneous population GBLUP. The exception was for fat, where there was no gain in reliability. Estimated validation reliabilities were low for milk (0.32) and protein (0.32) and slightly higher (0.42) for fat. © 2012 Blackwell Verlag GmbH. Source

Discover hidden collaborations