Estimating Additive and Non-Additive Genetic Variances and Predicting Genetic Merits Using Genome-Wide Dense Single Nucleotide Polymorphism Markers

PLoS ONE

Volumn 7, Issue 9, 2012, Pages

  Su, Guosheng ^a   Christensen, Ole F ^a   Ostersen, Tage ^b   Henryon, Mark ^b,c   Lund, Mogens S ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b Danish Agriculture and Food Council   (Denmark)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADDITIVE GENETIC EFFECT; ADDITIVE GENETIC RELATION MATRIX; ADDITIVE GENETIC VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BEST LINEAR UNBIASED PREDICTION; BIOLOGICAL TRAIT; BREEDING; EPISTASIS; GENETIC VARIABILITY; GENOMICS; HEREDITY; HERITABILITY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NON ADDITIVE GENETIC EFFECT; NON ADDITIVE GENETIC RELATION MATRIX; NON ADDITIVE GENETIC VARIANCE; NONHUMAN; PHENOTYPIC VARIATION; PREDICTION; RELIABILITY; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; SWINE; VARIANCE;

ANIMALS; BREEDING; EPISTASIS, GENETIC; FEMALE; GENETIC MARKERS; GENETIC VARIATION; GENOME; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; GENOTYPE; INHERITANCE PATTERNS; LINEAR MODELS; MALE; MODELS, GENETIC; PHENOTYPE; POLYMORPHISM, SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE; SWINE; WEIGHT GAIN;

ANIMALIA; SUIDAE;

EID: 84866396804     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0045293     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Gengler N, VanVleck LD, MacNeil MD, Misztal I, Pariacote FA, (1997) Influence of dominance relationships on the estimation of dominance variance with sire-dam subclass effects. Journal of Animal Science 75: 2885-2891.
2. Palucci V, Schaeffer LR, Miglior F, Osborne V, (2007) Non-additive genetic effects for fertility traits in Canadian Holstein cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 39: 181-193.
3. Norris D, Varona L, Ngambi JW, Visser DP, Mbajiorgu CA, et al. (2010) Estimation of the additive and dominance variances in SA Duroc pigs. Livestock Science 131: 144-147.
4. Jiang L, Liu J, Sun D, Ma P, Ding X, et al. (2010) Genome wide association studies for milk production traits in Chinese Holstein population. PLoS One 5: e13661.
5. Hayes B, Goddard M, (2010) Genome-wide association and genomic selection in animal breeding. Genome 53: 876-883.
6. Pettersson M, Besnier F, Siegel PB, Carlborg O, (2011) Replication and explorations of high-order epistasis using a large advanced intercross line pedigree. PLoS Genet 7: e1002180.
7. Sahana G, Mailund T, Lund MS, Guldbrandtsen B, (2011) Local genealogies in a linear mixed model for genome-wide association mapping in complex pedigreed populations. PLoS One 6: e27061.
8. Fu WX, Liu Y, Lu X, Niu XY, Ding XD, et al. (2012) A genome-wide association study identifies two novel promising candidate genes affecting Escherichia coli F4ab/F4ac susceptibility in swine. PLoS One 7: e32127.
9. VanRaden PM, Sullivan PG, (2010) International genomic evaluation methods for dairy cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 42: 7.
10. Lund MS, de Ross SP, de Vries AG, Druet T, Ducrocq V, et al. (2011) A common reference population from four European Holstein populations increases reliability of genomic predictions. Genet Sel Evol 43: 43.
11. Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AJ, Goddard ME, (2009) Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 433-443.
12. Su G, Guldbrandtsen B, Gregersen VR, Lund MS, (2010) Preliminary investigation on reliability of genomic estimated breeding values in the Danish Holstein population. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 1175-1183.
13. Hayes BJ, Visscher PM, Goddard ME, (2009) Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix. Genetics Research 91: 47-60.
14. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME, (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157: 1819-1829.
15. VanRaden PM, (2008) Efficient Methods to Compute Genomic Predictions. Journal of Dairy Science 91: 4414-4423.
16. de los Campos G, Naya H, Gianola D, Crossa J, Legarra A, et al. (2009) Predicting quantitative traits with regression models for dense molecular markers and pedigree. Genetics 182: 375-385.
17. Meuwissen THE, (2009) Accuracy of breeding values of 'unrelated' individuals predicted by dense SNP genotyping. Genetics Selection Evolution 41: 35.
18. Lund MS, Sahana G, de Koning DJ, Su G, Carlborg Ö, (2009) Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XII common dataset. I: Genomic selection. BMC Proceedings 3: s1.
19. Guo G, Lund MS, Zhang Y, Su G, (2010) Comparison between genomic predictions using daughter yield deviation and conventional estimated breeding value as response variables. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 127: 423-432.
20. VanRaden PM, Van Tassell CP, Wiggans GR, Sonstegard TS, Schnabel RD, et al. (2009) Invited review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 16-24.
21. Ostersen T, Christensen OF, Henryon M, Nielsen B, Su GS, et al. (2011) Deregressed EBV as the response variable yield more reliable genomic predictions than traditional EBV in pure-bred pigs. Genetics Selection Evolution 43: 38.
22. Goddard M, (2009) Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica 136: 245-257.
23. Stranden I, Garrick DJ, (2009) Technical note: Derivation of equivalent computing algorithms for genomic predictions and reliabilities of animal merit. J Dairy Sci 92: 2971-2975.
24. Legarra A, Aguilar I, Misztal I, (2009) A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 4656-4663.
25. Aguilar I, Misztal I, Johnson DL, Legarra A, Tsuruta S, et al. (2010) Hot topic: A unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 743-752.
26. Christensen OF, Lund MS, (2010) Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genetics Selection Evolution 42: 2.
27. Misztal I, Legarra A, Aguilar I, (2009) Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information. Journal of Dairy Science 92: 4648-4655.
28. Henderson CR, (1985) Best linear unbiased prediction of nonadditive genetic merits in noninbred populations. Journal of Animal Science 60: 7.
29. Gilmour AR, Thompson R, Cullis BR, (1995) Average information REML: An efficient algorithm for variance parameter estimation in linear mixed models. Biometrics 51: 1440-1450.
30. Dunn OJ, Clark V, (1971) Comparison of tests of the equality of dependent correlation coefficients. Journal of the American Statistical Association 66: 904-908.
31. Stiger JH, (1980) Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin 87: 245-251.
32. Su G, Madsen P, Nielsen US, Mäntysaari EA, Aamand GP, et al. (2012) Genomic prediction for Nordic Red Cattle using one-step and selection index blending. Journal of Dairy Science 95: 909-917.
33. Harris BL, Johnson DL, (2010) Genomic predictions for New Zealand dairy bulls and integration with national genetic evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 93: 1243-1252.
34. Yang JA, Benyamin B, McEvoy BP, Gordon S, Henders AK, et al. (2010) Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nature Genetics 42: 565-U131.
35. Visscher PM, Yang JA, Goddard ME, (2010) A Commentary on 'Common SNPs Explain a Large Proportion of the Heritability for Human Height' by Yanget al. (2010). Twin Research and Human Genetics 13: 517-524.
36. Duthie C, Simm G, Doeschl-Wilson A, Kalm E, Knap PW, et al. (2010) Epistatic analysis of carcass characteristics in pigs reveals genomic interactions between quantitative trait loci attributable to additive and dominance genetic effects. J Anim Sci 88: 2219-2234.
37. Xu S, Jia Z, (2007) Genomewide analysis of epistatic effects for quantitative traits in barley. Genetics 175: 1955-1963.
38. Estelle J, Gil F, Vazquez JM, Latorre R, Ramirez G, et al. (2008) A quantitative trait locus genome scan for porcine muscle fiber traits reveals overdominance and epistasis. J Anim Sci 86: 3290-3299.
39. Hoeschele I, (1991) Additive and nonadditive genetic variance in female fertility of Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 1743-1752.
40. Misztal I, (1997) Estimation of variance components with large-scale dominance models. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 965-974.
41. Duangjinda M, Bertrand JK, Misztal I, Druet T, (2001) Estimation of additive and nonadditive genetic variances in Hereford, Gelbvieh, and Charolais by Method R. Journal of Animal Science. 79: 2997-3001.
42. Gengler N, Misztal I, Bertrand JK, Culbertson MS, (1998) Estimation of the dominance variance for postweaning gain in the US Limousin population. Journal of Animal Science 76: 2515-2520.
43. Culbertson MS, Mabry JW, Misztal I, Gengler N, Bertrand JK, et al. (1998) Estimation of dominance variance in purebred Yorkshire swine. Journal of Animal Science 76: 448-451.
44. Carlborg O, Kerje S, Schutz K, Jacobsson L, Jensen P, et al. (2003) A global search reveals epistatic interaction between QTL for early growth in the chicken. Genome Research 13: 413-421.
45. Carlborg R, Hocking PM, Burt DW, Haley CS, (2004) Simultaneous mapping of epistatic QTL in chickens reveals clusters of QTL pairs with similar genetic effects on growth. Genetical Research 83: 197-209.
46. Grosse-Brinkhaus C, Jonas E, Buschbell H, Phatsara C, Tesfaye D, et al. (2010) Epistatic QTL pairs associated with meat quality and carcass composition traits in a porcine Duroc x Pietrain population. Genetics Selection Evolution 42: 39.
47. Varona L, Misztal I, Bertrand JK, Lawlor TJ, (1998) Effect of full sibs on additive breeding values under the dominance model for stature in United States Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 1126-1135.
48. Varona L, Misztal I, (1999) Prediction of parental dominance combinations for planned matings, methodology, and simulation results. Journal of Dairy Science 82: 2186-2191.