Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges

Department of Primary Industries Victoria,Biosciences Research Division, Bundoora, Australia.
Journal of Dairy Science (Impact Factor: 2.55). 03/2009; 92(2):433-43. DOI: 10.3168/jds.2008-1646
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A new technology called genomic selection is revolutionizing dairy cattle breeding. Genomic selection refers to selection decisions based on genomic breeding values (GEBV). The GEBV are calculated as the sum of the effects of dense genetic markers, or haplotypes of these markers, across the entire genome, thereby potentially capturing all the quantitative trait loci (QTL) that contribute to variation in a trait. The QTL effects, inferred from either haplotypes or individual single nucleotide polymorphism markers, are first estimated in a large reference population with phenotypic information. In subsequent generations, only marker information is required to calculate GEBV. The reliability of GEBV predicted in this way has already been evaluated in experiments in the United States, New Zealand, Australia, and the Netherlands. These experiments used reference populations of between 650 and 4,500 progeny-tested Holstein-Friesian bulls, genotyped for approximately 50,000 genome-wide markers. Reliabilities of GEBV for young bulls without progeny test results in the reference population were between 20 and 67%. The reliability achieved depended on the heritability of the trait evaluated, the number of bulls in the reference population, the statistical method used to estimate the single nucleotide polymorphism effects in the reference population, and the method used to calculate the reliability. A common finding in 3 countries (United States, New Zealand, and Australia) was that a straightforward BLUP method for estimating the marker effects gave reliabilities of GEBV almost as high as more complex methods. The BLUP method is attractive because the only prior information required is the additive genetic variance of the trait. All countries included a polygenic effect (parent average breeding value) in their GEBV calculation. This inclusion is recommended to capture any genetic variance not associated with the markers, and to put some selection pressure on low-frequency QTL that may not be captured by the markers. The reliabilities of GEBV achieved were significantly greater than the reliability of parental average breeding values, the current criteria for selection of bull calves to enter progeny test teams. The increase in reliability is sufficiently high that at least 2 dairy breeding companies are already marketing bull teams for commercial use based on their GEBV only, at 2 yr of age. This strategy should at least double the rate of genetic gain in the dairy industry. Many challenges with genomic selection and its implementation remain, including increasing the accuracy of GEBV, integrating genomic information into national and international genetic evaluations, and managing long-term genetic gain.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the feasibility of use of the test-day (TD) single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) using phenotypic records of Nordic Red Dairy cows. The critical point in ssGBLUP is how genomically derived relationships (G) are integrated with population-based pedigree relationships (A) into a combined relationship matrix (H). Therefore, we also tested how different weights for genomic and pedigree relationships affect ssGBLUP, validation reliability, and validation regression coefficients. Deregressed proofs for 305-d milk, protein, and fat yields were used for a posteriori validation. The results showed that the use of phenotypic TD records in ssGBLUP is feasible. Moreover, the TD ssGBLUP model gave considerably higher validation reliabilities and validation regression coefficients than the TD model without genomic information. No significant differences were found in validation reliability between the different TD ssGBLUP models according to bootstrap confidence intervals. However, the degree of inflation in genomic enhanced breeding values is affected by the method used in construction of the H matrix. The results showed that ssGBLUP provides a good alternative to the currently used multi-step approach but there is a great need to find the best option to combine pedigree and genomic information in the genomic matrix. Copyright © 2015 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Dairy Science 02/2015; DOI:10.3168/jds.2014-8975 · 2.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Holsteins are the most numerous dairy cattle breed in North America and the breed has undergone intensive selection for improving milk production and conformation. Theoretically, this intensive selection could lead to a reduction of the effective population size and reduced genetic diversity. The objective of this study was to investigate the effective population size of the Holstein Y chromosome and the effects of limited Y chromosome lineages on male reproduction and the future of the breed. Paternal pedigree information of 62,897 Holstein bulls born between 1950 and 2013 in North America and 220,872 bulls evaluated by multiple-trait across-country genetic evaluations of Interbull (Uppsala, Sweden) were collected and analyzed. The results indicated that the number of Y chromosome lineages in Holsteins has undergone a dramatic decrease during the past 50 years because of artificial selection and the application of artificial insemination (AI) technology. All current Holstein AI bulls in North America are the descendants of only 2 ancestors (Hulleman and Neptune H) born in 1880. These 2 ancestral Y-lineages are continued through 3 dominant pedigrees from the 1960s; namely, Pawnee Farm Arlinda Chief, Round Oak Rag Apple Elevation, and Penstate Ivanhoe Star, with a contribution of 48.78, 51.06, and 0.16% to the Holstein bull population in the 2010s, respectively. The Y-lineage of Penstate Ivanhoe Star is almost eliminated from the breed. The genetic variations in the 2 ancestral Y-lineages were evaluated among 257 bulls by determining the copy number variations (CNV) of 3 Y-linked gene families: PRAMEY, HSFY, and ZNF280BY, which are spread along the majority (95%) of the bovine Y chromosome male-specific region (MSY). No significant difference was found between the 2 ancestral Y-lineages, although large CNV were observed within each lineage. This study suggests minimal genetic diversity on the Y chromosome in Holsteins and provides a starting point for investigating the effect of the extremely limited number of Y-lineages on male reproduction and other traits important for the future of the Holstein breed. Copyright © 2015 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Dairy Science 02/2015; 98(4). DOI:10.3168/jds.2014-8601 · 2.55 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A single-step method allows genetic evaluation using information of phenotypes, pedigree, and markers from genotyped and nongenotyped individuals simultaneously. This paper compared genomic predictions obtained from a single-step BLUP (SSBLUP) method, a genomic BLUP (GBLUP) method, a selection index blending (SELIND) method, and a traditional pedigree-based method (BLUP) for total number of piglets born (TNB), litter size at d 5 after birth (LS5), and mortality rate before d 5 (Mort; including stillbirth) in Danish Landrace and Yorkshire pigs. Data sets of 778,095 litters from 309,362 Landrace sows and 472,001 litters from 190,760 Yorkshire sows were used for the analysis. There were 332,795 Landrace and 207,255 Yorkshire animals in the pedigree data, among which 3,445 Landrace pigs (1,366 boars and 2,079 sows) and 3,372 Yorkshire pigs (1,241 boars and 2,131 sows) were genotyped with the Illumina PorcineSNP60 BeadChip. The results showed that the 3 methods with marker information (SSBLUP, GBLUP, and SELIND) produced more accurate predictions for genotyped animals than the pedigree-based method. For genotyped animals, the average of reliabilities for all traits in both breeds using traditional BLUP was 0.091, which increased to 0.171 when using GBLUP and to 0.179 when using SELIND and further increased to 0.209 when using SSBLUP. Furthermore, the average reliability of EBV for nongenotyped animals was increased from 0.091 for traditional BLUP to 0.105 for the SSBLUP. The results indicate that the SSBLUP is a good approach to practical genomic prediction of litter size and piglet mortality in Danish Landrace and Yorkshire populations.
    Journal of Animal Science 12/2014; DOI:10.2527/jas.2014-8331 · 1.92 Impact Factor