Invited review: Animal-breeding schemes using genomic information need breeding plans designed to maximise long-term genetic gains

Livestock Science

Volumn 166, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 38-47

  Henryon, M ^a,b   Berg, P ^c   Sorensen A C ^d  

^a Pig Research Centre   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^c NordGen   (Norway)

^d AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Animal breeding; Breeding plans; Decision framework; Genomic selection; Inbreeding

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA;

EID: 84905586640     PISSN: 18711413     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2014.06.016     Document Type: Article

References (105)

1. Abell C.E., Dekkers J.C.M., Rothschild M.F., Mabry J.W., Stalder K.J. Total cost estimation for implementing genome-enabled selection in a multi-level swine production system. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2014, 46:32.
2. Amer P.R., Banos G. Implications of avoiding overlap between training and testing data sets when evaluating genomic predictions of genetic merit. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93:3320-3330.
3. Avendaño S., Woolliams J.A., Villanueva B. Mendelian sampling terms as a selective advantage in optimum breeding schemes with restrictions on the rate of inbreeding. Genet. Res. 2004, 83:55-64.
4. Bagnato A., Rosati A. From the Editors - Animal selection: the genomics revolution. Anim. Front. 2012, 2:1-2.
5. Banks R.G., van der Werf J.H.J. Economic evaluation of whole genome selection, using meat sheep as a case study. Proc. Assoc. Adv. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2009, 18:430-433.
6. Bastiaansen J.W., Coster A., Calus M.P., van Arendonk J.A., Bovenhuis H. Long-term response to genomic selection: effects of estimation method and reference population structure for different genetic architectures. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2012, 44:3.
7. Boichard D., Guillaume F., Baur A., Croiseau P., Rossignol M.N., Boscher M.Y., Druet T., Genestout L., Colleau J.J., Journaux L., Ducrocq V., Fritz S. Genomic selection in French dairy cattle. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2012, 52:115-120.
8. Boligon A.A., Long N., Albuquerque L.G., Weigel K.A., Gianola D., Rosa G.J.M. Comparison of selective genotyping strategies for prediction of breeding values in a population undergoing selection. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90:4716-4722.
9. Bouquet A., Juga J. Integrating genomic selection into dairy cattle breeding programs: a review. Animal 2012, 7:705-713.
10. Broman K.W., Weber J.L. Long homozygous chromosomal segments in reference families from the centre d'Etude du polymorphisme humain. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1999, 65:1493-1500.
11. Browning S.R., Browning B.L. Identity by descent between distant relatives: detection and applications. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2012, 46:617-633.
12. Caballero A., Santiago E., Toro M.A. Systems of mating to reduce inbreeding in selected populations. Anim. Sci. 1996, 62:431-442.
13. Cervantes I., Meuwissen T.H.E. Maximization of total genetic variance in breed conservation programmes. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2011, 128:465-472.
14. Clark S.A., Hickey J.M., Daetwyler H.D., van der Werf J.H. The importance of information on relatives for the prediction of genomic breeding values and the implications for the makeup of reference data sets in livestock breeding schemes. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2012, 44:4.
15. Clark S.A., Kinghorn B.P., Hickey J.M., van der Werf J.H. The effect of genomic information on optimal contribution selection in livestock breeding programs. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2013, 45:44.
16. De Cara M.A.R., Fernández J., Toro M.A., Villanueva B. Using genome-wide information to minimize the loss of diversity in conservation programmes. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2011, 128:456-464.
17. Daetwyler H.D., Calus M.P., Pong-Wong R., de los Campos G., Hickey J.M. Genomic prediction in animals and plants: simulation of data, validation, reporting, and benchmarking. Genetics 2013, 193:347-365.
18. Daetwyler H.D., Pong-Wong R., Villanueva B., Woolliams J.A. The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 2010, 185:1021-1031.
19. Daetwyler H.D., Villanueva B., Bijma P., Woolliams J.A. Inbreeding in genome-wide selection. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2007, 124:369-376.
20. Daetwyler H.D., Villanueva B., Woolliams J.A. Accuracy of predicting the genetic risk of disease using a genome-wide approach. PLoS One 2008, 3:e3395.
21. Dekkers J.C. Commercial application of marker-and gene-assisted selection in livestock: strategies and lessons. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82:E313-E328.
22. de los Campos G., Hickey J.M., Pong-Wong R., Daetwyler H.D., Calus M.P.L. Whole-genome regression and prediction methods applied to plant and animal breeding. Genetics 2013, 193:327-345.
23. Dickerson, G.E., 1982. Principles in establishing breeding objectives in livestock. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Sheep and Beef Cattle Breeding, vol. I, pp. 9-22.
24. Ehsani, A., Janss, L., Christensen, O.F., 2010. Effects of selective genotyping on genomic prediction. In: Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production Abstract No. 444.
25. Engelsma K.A., Veerkamp R.F., Calus M.P.L., Windig J.J. Consequences for diversity when prioritizing animals for conservation with pedigree or genomic information. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2011, 128:473-481.
26. Falconer D.S., McKay T.F.C. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics 1996, Longmann, England. third ed.
27. Ferenčaković M., Hamzić E., Gredler B., Solberg T.R., Klemetsdal G., Curik I., Sölkner J. Estimates of autozygosity derived from runs of homozygosity: empirical evidence from selected cattle populations. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2013, 130:286-293.
28. Gjedrem T., Baranski M. Selective Breeding in Aquaculture: An Introduction 2009, Springer, Netherlands.
29. Goddard M. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica 2009, 136:245-257.
30. Goddard M.E. Uses of genomics in livestock agriculture. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2012, 52:73-77.
31. Goddard, M.E., Hayes, B.J., Meuwissen, T.H.E., 2010. Genomic selection in farm animal species - lessons learnt and future perspectives. In: Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production Abstract No. 701.
32. Green R.D. ASAS Centennial Paper: future needs in animal breeding and genetics. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 87:793-800.
33. Grimm V., Railsback S.F. Individual-based Modeling and Ecology 2013, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.
34. Groen A.F., Steine T., Colleau J.J., Pedersen J., Pribyl J., Reinsch N. Economic values in dairy cattle breeding, with special reference to functional traits. Report of an EAAP-working group. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1997, 49:1-21.
35. Grundy B., Villanueva B., Woolliams J.A. Dynamic selection procedures for constrained inbreeding and their consequences for pedigree development. Genet. Res. 1998, 72:159-168.
36. Grundy B., Villanueva B., Woolliams J.A. Dynamic selection for maximizing response with constrained inbreeding in schemes with overlapping generations. Anim. Sci. 2000, 70:373-382.
37. Habier D., Fernando R.L., Dekkers J.C.M. The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics 2007, 177:2389-2397.
38. Habier D., Fernando R.L., Dekkers J.C.M. Genomic selection using low-density marker panels. Genetics 2009, 182:343-353.
39. Habier D., Tetens J., Seefried F.R., Lichtner P., Thaller G. The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2010, 42:5.
40. Haefner J.W. Modeling Biological Systems: Principles and Applications 2005, Springer, New York. second ed.
41. Harris B.L., Johnson D.L., Spelman R.J., Sattler J.D. Genomic selection in New Zealand and the implications for national genetic evaluation. ICAR Tech. Ser. 2009, 13:325-330.
42. Hayes B.J., Bowman P.J., Chamberlain A.J., Goddard M.E. Genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92:433-443.
43. Hayes B.J., Daetwyler H.D., Bowman P.J., Moser G., Tier B., Crump R., Khatkar M., Raadsma H.W., Goddard M.E. Accuracy of genomic selection: comparing theory and results. Proc. Assoc. Adv. Anim. Breed. 2009, 18:34-37.
44. Hayes B.J., Visscher P.M., Goddard M.E. Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix. Genet. Res. 2009, 91:47-60.
45. Henryon M., Berg P., Ostersen T., Nielsen B., Sørensen A.C. Most of the benefits from genomic selection can be realized by genotyping a small proportion of available selection candidates. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90:4681-4689.
46. Henryon M., Sørensen A.C., Berg P. Mating animals by minimising the covariance between ancestral contributions generates less inbreeding without compromising genetic gain in breeding schemes with truncation selection. Animal 2009, 3:1339-1346.
47. Huang Y., Hickey J.M., Cleveland M.A., Maltecca C. Assessment of alternative genotyping strategies to maximize imputation accuracy at minimal cost. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2012, 44:25.
48. James J.W. Economic aspects of developing breeding objectives: general considerations. Future Developments in the Genetic Improvement of Animals 1982, 107-118. Academic Press, Sydney. J.S.F. Barker, K. Hammond, A.E. McClintock (Eds.).
49. Jannink J.L. Dynamics of long-term genomic selection. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2010, 42:35.
50. Jannink J.L., Lorenz A.J., Iwata H. Genomic selection in plant breeding: from theory to practice. Brief. Funct. Genom. 2010, 9:166-177.
51. Jiménez-Montero J.A., Gonzalez-Recio O., Alenda R. Genotyping strategies for genomic selection in small dairy cattle populations. Animal 2012, 6:1216-1224.
52. Kirin M., McQuillan R., Franklin C.S., Campbell H., McKeigue P.M., Wilson J.F. Genomic runs of homozygosity record population history and consanguinity. PLoS One 2010, 5:e13996.
53. König S., Simianer H., Willam A. Economic evaluation of genomic breeding programs. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92:382-391.
54. Kristensen T.N., Sørensen A.C. Inbreeding - lessons from animal breeding, evolutionary biology and conservation genetics. Anim. Sci. 2005, 80:121-133.
55. Leutenegger A.L., Prum B., Génin E., Verny C., Lemainque A., Clerget-Darpoux F., Thompson E.A. Estimation of the inbreeding coefficient through use of genomic data. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2003, 73:516-523.
56. Lillehammer M., Meuwissen T.H.E., Sonesson A.K. A comparison of dairy cattle breeding designs that use genomic selection. J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94:493-500.
57. Lillehammer M., Meuwissen T.H.E., Sonesson A.K. Genomic selection for maternal traits in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89:3908-3916.
58. Lindgren D., Matheson A.C. An algorithm for increasing the genetic quality of seed from orchards by using the better clones in higher proportions. Silv. Genet. 1986, 35:173-177.
59. Liu H., Sørensen A.C., Meuwissen T.H.E., Berg P. Allele frequency changes due to hitch-hiking in genomic selection programs. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2014, 46:8.
60. Lund M.S., Su G., Nielsen U.S., Aamand G.P. Relation between accuracies of genomic predictions and ancestral links to the training data. Interbull Bull. 2009, 40:162-166.
61. Mark T., Sandøe P. Genomic dairy cattle breeding: risks and opportunities for cow welfare. Anim. Welf. 2010, 19:113-121.
62. Meuwissen T.H.E. Maximising the response of selection with a pre-defined rate of inbreeding. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 75:934-940.
63. Meuwissen T.H.E. Operation of conservation schemes. Utilisation and Conservation of Farm Animals Genetic Resources 2007, 167-193. Wageningen Academic, Wageningen, The Netherlands. H. Oldenbroek (Ed.).
64. Meuwissen T.H.E., Hayes B.J., Goddard M.E. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001, 157:1819-1829.
65. Meuwissen T., Hayes B., Goddard M. Accelerating improvement of livestock with genomic selection. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 2013, 1:221-237.
66. Meuwissen T.H.E., Sonesson A.K. Maximizing the response of selection with a predefined rate of inbreeding: overlapping generations. J. Anim. Sci. 1998, 76:2575-2583.
67. Muir W.M. Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2007, 124:342-355.
68. Nielsen H.M., Sonesson A.K., Yazdi H., Meuwissen T.H.E. Comparison of accuracy of genome-wide and BLUP breeding value estimates in sib based aquaculture breeding schemes. Aquaculture 2009, 289:259-264.
69. Okeno, T.O., Henryon, M., Sørensen, A.C., 2014. Phenotyping only high ranking selection candidates is favorable in pigs genomic breeding program. In: Proceedings of the 10th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (in press).
70. Pedersen L.D., Sørensen A.C., Henryon M., Ansari-Mahyari S., Berg P. ADAM: a computer program to simulate selective breeding schemes for animals. Livest. Sci. 2009, 121:343-344.
71. Purfield D.C., Berry D.P., McParland S., Bradley D.G. Runs of homozygosity and population history in cattle. BMC Genet. 2012, 13:70.
72. Pryce J.E., Daetwyler H.D. Designing dairy cattle breeding schemes under genomic selection: a review of international research. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2012, 52:107-114.
73. Pryce J.E., Hayes B.J., Goddard M.E. Novel strategies to minimize progeny inbreeding while maximizing genetic gain using genomic information. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95:377-388.
74. Pryce, J.E., Hayes, B.J., Goddard, M.E., 2012b. Genotyping dairy females can improve the reliability of genomic selection for young bulls and heifers and provide farmers with new management tools. In: Proceedings of the 36th ICAR Session, Cork, Ireland.
75. Pszczola M., Strabel T., Mulder H.A., Calus M.P.L. Reliability of direct genomic values for animals with different relationships within and to the reference population. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95:389-400.
76. Rauw W.M., Kanis E., Noordhuizen-Stassen E.N., Grommers F.J. Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livest. Prod. Sci. 1998, 56:15-33.
77. Ritland K. Estimators for pairwise relatedness and individual inbreeding coefficients. Genet. Res. 1996, 67:175-185.
78. Roughsedge T., Pong-Wong R., Woolliams J.A., Villanueva B. Restricting coancestry and inbreeding at a specific position on the genome by using optimized selection. Genet. Res. 2008, 90:199.
79. Rutten M.J.M., Bijma P., Woolliams J., van Arendonk J.A.M. SelAction: software to predict selection response and rate of inbreeding in livestock breeding programs. J. Hered. 2002, 93:456-458.
80. Sánchez L., Bijma P., Woolliams J.A. Minimising inbreeding by managing genetic contributions across generations. Genetics 2003, 164:1589-1595.
81. Schaeffer L.R. Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2006, 123:218-223.
82. Sonesson A.K., Meuwissen T.H.E. Mating schemes for optimum contribution selection with constrained rates of inbreeding. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2000, 32:231-248.
83. Sonesson A.K., Woolliams J.A., Meuwissen T.H.E. Genomic selection requires genomic control of inbreeding. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2012, 44:27.
84. Starfield A.M., Bleloch A.L. Building Models for Conservation and Wildlife Management 1986, Macmillan, New York.
85. Starfield A.M., Smith K.A., Bleloch A.L. How to Model It: Problem-solving for the Computer Age 1990, McGraw-Hill, New York.
86. Stock K.F., Reents R. Genomic selection: status in different species and challenges for breeding. Reprod. Domest. Anim. 2013, 48:2-10.
87. Sørensen A.C., Berg P., Woolliams J.A. The advantage of factorial mating under selection is uncovered by deterministically predicted rates of inbreeding. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2005, 37:57-81.
88. Sørensen A.C., Sørensen M.K. Inbreeding rates in breeding programs with different strategies for using genomic selection. Interbull Bull. 2009, 40:94-97.
89. Täubert, H., Reinhardt, F., Simianer, H., 2010. ZPLAN+, a new software to evaluate and optimize animal breeding programs. In: Proceedings of the 9th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production Abstract No. 950.
90. Taylor J.F. Implementation and accuracy of genomic selection. Aquaculture 2014, 420-421. , S8-S14.
91. Thomasen J.R., Egger-Danner C., Willam A., Guldbrandtsen B., Lund M.S., Sørensen A.C. Genomic selection strategies in a small dairy cattle population evaluated for genetic gain and profit. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97:458-470.
92. Todd D.L., Woolliams J.A., Rousedge T. Gene flow in a national cross-breeding beef population. Animal 2011, 5:1874-1886.
93. Van Eenennaam A.L., van der Werf J.H.J., Goddard M.E. The value of using DNA markers for beef bull selection in the seedstock sector. J. Anim. Sci. 2011, 89:307-320.
94. VanRaden P.M. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J. Dairy Sci. 2008, 91:4414-4423.
95. VanRaden P.M., Van Tassell C.P., Wiggans G.R., Sonstegard T.S., Schnabel R.D., Taylor J.F., Schenkel F.S. Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. J. Dairy Sci. 2009, 92:16-24.
96. Villanueva B., Pong-Wong R., Woolliams J.A. Marker assisted selection with optimised contributions of the candidates to selection. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2002, 34:679-704.
97. Wang J. Marker-based estimates of relatedness and inbreeding coefficients: an assessment of current methods. J. Evol. Biol. 2014, 27:518-530.
98. Woolliams, J.A., 2006. Designs and evaluations for managing genetic diversity in breeding programs. In: Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Communication no. 30-01.
99. Woolliams J.A. Genetic contributions and inbreeding. Utilisation and Conservation of Farm Animal Genetic Resources 2007, 147-165. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, The Netherlands. K. Oldenbroek (Ed.).
100. Woolliams, J.A., Pong-Wong, R., Villanueva, B., 2002. Strategic optimisation of short- and long-term gain and inbreeding in MAS and non-MAS schemes. In: Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Communication no. 23-02.
101. Woolliams, J.A., Thompson, R., 1994. A theory of genetic contributions. In: Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, vol. 19, pp. 127-134.
102. Wray N.R., Goddard M.E. Increasing long-term response to selection. Genet. Sel. Evol. 1994, 26:431-451.
103. Wray N.R., Thompson R. Prediction of rates of inbreeding in selected populations. Genet. Res. 1990, 55:41-54.
104. Wright S. Systems of mating. Genetics 1921, 6:111-178.
105. Yang J., Benyamin B., McEvoy B.P., Gordon S., Henders A.K., Nyholt D.R., Madden P.A., Heath A.C., Martin N.G., Montgomery G.W., Goddard M.E., Visscher P.M. Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height. Nat. Genet. 2010, 42:565-569.