Search

Genomic selection has become a useful tool for animal and plant breeding. Currently, genomic evaluation is usually carried out using a single-trait model. However, a multi-trait model has the advantage of using information on the correlated traits, leading to more accurate genomic prediction. To date, joint genomic prediction for a continuous and a threshold trait using a multi-trait model is scarce and needs more attention. Based on the previously proposed methods BayesCπ for single continuous trait and BayesTCπ for single threshold trait, we developed a novel method based on a linear-threshold model, i.e., LT-BayesCπ, for joint genomic prediction of a continuous trait and a threshold trait. Computing procedures of LT-BayesCπ using Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithm were derived. A simulation study was performed to investigate the advantages of LT-BayesCπ over BayesCπ and BayesTCπ with regard to the accuracy of genomic prediction on both traits. Factors affecting the performance of LT-BayesCπ were addressed. The results showed that, in all scenarios, the accuracy of genomic prediction obtained from LT-BayesCπ was significantly increased for the threshold trait compared to that from single trait prediction using BayesTCπ, while the accuracy for the continuous trait was comparable with that from single trait prediction using BayesCπ. The proposed LT-BayesCπ could be a method of choice for joint genomic prediction of one continuous and one threshold trait. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Feed represents the major cost of chicken production. Selection for improving feed utilization is a feasible way to reduce feed cost and greenhouse gas emissions. The objectives of this study were to investigate the efficiency of genomic prediction for feed conversion ratio (FCR), residual feed intake (RFI), average daily gain (ADG) and average daily feed intake (ADFI) and to assess the impact of selection for feed efficiency traits FCR and RFI on eviscerating percentage (EP), breast muscle percentage (BMP) and leg muscle percentage (LMP) in meat-type chickens. Genomic prediction was assessed using a 4-fold cross-validation for two validation scenarios. The first scenario was a random family sampling validation (CVF), and the second scenario was a random individual sampling validation (CVR). Variance components were estimated based on the genomic relationship built with single nucleotide polymorphism markers. Genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) were predicted using a genomic best linear unbiased prediction model. The accuracies of GEBV were evaluated in two ways: the correlation between GEBV and corrected phenotypic value divided by the square root of heritability, i.e., the correlation-based accuracy, and model-based theoretical accuracy. Breeding values were also predicted using a conventional pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction model in order to compare accuracies of genomic and conventional predictions. The heritability estimates of FCR and RFI were 0.29 and 0.50, respectively. The heritability estimates of ADG, ADFI, EP, BMP and LMP ranged from 0.34 to 0.53. In the CVF scenario, the correlation-based accuracy and the theoretical accuracy of genomic prediction for FCR were slightly higher than those for RFI. The correlation-based accuracies for FCR, RFI, ADG and ADFI were 0.360, 0.284, 0.574 and 0.520, respectively, and the model-based theoretical accuracies were 0.420, 0.414, 0.401 and 0.382, respectively. In the CVR scenario, the correlation-based accuracy and the theoretical accuracy of genomic prediction for FCR was lower than RFI, which was different from the CVF scenario. The correlation-based accuracies for FCR, RFI, ADG and ADFI were 0.449, 0.593, 0.581 and 0.627, respectively, and the model-based theoretical accuracies were 0.577, 0.629, 0.631 and 0.638, respectively. The accuracies of genomic predictions were 0.371 and 0.322 higher than the conventional pedigree-based predictions for the CVF and CVR scenarios, respectively. The genetic correlations of FCR with EP, BMP and LMP were -0.427, -0.156 and -0.338, respectively. The correlations between RFI and the three carcass traits were -0.320, -0.404 and -0.353, respectively. These results indicate that RFI and FCR have a moderate accuracy of genomic prediction. Improving RFI and FCR could be favourable for EP, BMP and LMP. Compared with FCR, which can be improved by selection for ADG in typical meat-type chicken breeding programs, selection for RFI could lead to extra improvement in feed efficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Newcastle disease (ND) and avian influenza (AI) are the most feared diseases in the poultry industry worldwide. They can cause flock mortality up to 100%, resulting in a catastrophic economic loss. This is the first study to investigate the feasibility of genomic selection for antibody response to Newcastle disease virus (Ab-NDV) and antibody response to Avian Influenza virus (Ab-AIV) in chickens. The data were collected from a crossbred population. Breeding values for Ab-NDV and Ab-AIV were estimated using a pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction model (BLUP) and a genomic best linear unbiased prediction model (GBLUP). Single-trait and multiple-trait analyses were implemented. According to the analysis using the pedigree-based model, the heritability for Ab-NDV estimated from the single-trait and multiple-trait models was 0.478 and 0.487, respectively. The heritability for Ab-AIV estimated from the two models was 0.301 and 0.291, respectively. The estimated genetic correlation between the two traits was 0.438. A four-fold cross-validation was used to assess the accuracy of the estimated breeding values (EBV) in the two validation scenarios. In the family sample scenario each half-sib family is randomly allocated to one of four subsets and in the random sample scenario the individuals are randomly divided into four subsets. In the family sample scenario, compared with the pedigree-based model, the accuracy of the genomic prediction increased from 0.086 to 0.237 for Ab-NDV and from 0.080 to 0.347 for Ab-AIV. In the random sample scenario, the accuracy was improved from 0.389 to 0.427 for Ab-NDV and from 0.281 to 0.367 for Ab-AIV. The multiple-trait GBLUP model led to a slightly higher accuracy of genomic prediction for both traits. These results indicate that genomic selection for antibody response to ND and AI in chickens is promising. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-additive genetic variation is usually ignored when genome-wide markers are used to study the genetic architecture and genomic prediction of complex traits in human, wild life, model organisms or farm animals. However, non-additive genetic effects may have an important contribution to total genetic variation of complex traits. This study presented a genomic BLUP model including additive and non-additive genetic effects, in which additive and non-additive genetic relation matrices were constructed from information of genome-wide dense single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. In addition, this study for the first time proposed a method to construct dominance relationship matrix using SNP markers and demonstrated it in detail. The proposed model was implemented to investigate the amounts of additive genetic, dominance and epistatic variations, and assessed the accuracy and unbiasedness of genomic predictions for daily gain in pigs. In the analysis of daily gain, four linear models were used: 1) a simple additive genetic model (MA), 2) a model including both additive and additive by additive epistatic genetic effects (MAE), 3) a model including both additive and dominance genetic effects (MAD), and 4) a full model including all three genetic components (MAED). Estimates of narrow-sense heritability were 0.397, 0.373, 0.379 and 0.357 for models MA, MAE, MAD and MAED, respectively. Estimated dominance variance and additive by additive epistatic variance accounted for 5.6% and 9.5% of the total phenotypic variance, respectively. Based on model MAED, the estimate of broad-sense heritability was 0.506. Reliabilities of genomic predicted breeding values for the animals without performance records were 28.5%, 28.8%, 29.2% and 29.5% for models MA, MAE, MAD and MAED, respectively. In addition, models including non-additive genetic effects improved unbiasedness of genomic predictions.