Reliable genomic evaluations across breeds and borders Sander de Roos CRV, the Netherlands.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Added value of whole-genome sequence data to genomic predictions in dairy cattle Rianne van Binsbergen 1,2, Mario Calus 1, Chris Schrooten 3, Fred van.
Advertisements

Use of OPU-IVP and SO at CRV breeding program in the genomic era
Matt Spangler University of Nebraska- Lincoln DEVELOPMENT OF GENOMIC EPD: EXPANDING TO MULTIPLE BREEDS IN MULTIPLE WAYS.
Genomic imputation and evaluation using 1074 high density Holstein genotypes P. M. VanRaden 1, D. J. Null 1 *, G.R. Wiggans 1, T.S. Sonstegard 2, E.E.
2002 Paul M. VanRaden and Ashley H. Sanders Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
From sequence data to genomic prediction
2007 Paul VanRaden and Jeff O’Connell Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD U MD College of Medicine, Baltimore, MD
Use of Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) in Dairy Sire Selection Fabio Monteiro de Rezende Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) - Brazil.
Bull selection based on QTL for specific environments Fabio Monteiro de Rezende Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE) - Brazil.
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2009 G.R. WiggansCroatian.
Genomic selection in animal breeding- A promising future for faster genetic improvement in livestock Dr Indrasen Chauhan Scientist, CSWRI, Avikanagar Tonk
Wiggans, 2013RL meeting, Aug. 15 (1) Dr. George R. Wiggans, Acting Research Leader Bldg. 005, Room 306, BARC-West (main office);
How Genomics is changing Business and Services of Associations Dr. Josef Pott, Weser-Ems-Union eG, Germany.
But who will be the next GREAT one?. USA Bull Proofs * Bulls are ranked based upon their DAUGHTER’S (progeny) production and physical characteristics.
What’s coming next in genomics? Ben Hayes, Department of Primary Industries, Victoria, Australia.
Mating Programs Including Genomic Relationships and Dominance Effects
Mating Programs Including Genomic Relationships and Dominance Effects Chuanyu Sun 1, Paul M. VanRaden 2, Jeff R. O'Connell 3 1 National Association of.
WiggansARS Big Data Workshop – July 16, 2015 (1) George R. Wiggans Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,
2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD 2011 Avoiding bias from genomic pre- selection in converting.
George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD National Association.
Performance of Holsteins that originated from embryo transfer or twin births H.D. Norman, J.R. Wright* and R.L. Powell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory,
Wiggans, th WCGALP (1) G.R. Wiggans*, T.A. Cooper, D.J. Null, and P.M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research.
2002 ADSA 2002 (HDN-1) H.D. NORMAN* ( ), R.H. MILLER, P.M. V AN RADEN, and J.R. WRIGHT Animal Improvement Programs.
Selection for Disease Resistance Gert Pedersen Aamand Nordic Cattle Genetic Evaluation.
John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD March 2012 AIPL.
Breeding Jersey cattle for Africa in the era of genomics Prof Norman Maiwashe 1,2 (PhD, Pri. Sci. Nat) 1 ARC-Animal Production Institute Private Bag X2.
Bovine Genomics The Technology and its Applications Gerrit Kistemaker Chief Geneticist, Canadian Dairy Network (CDN) Many slides were created by.
2003 G.R. Wiggans,* P.M. VanRaden, and J.L. Edwards Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD
2007 Paul VanRaden and Mel Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA
John B. Cole Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD , USA The use and.
Cooper, 2014CDCB Meeting Aug. 5(1) T.A. Cooper, G.R. Wiggans and P.M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service,
Low-Cost, Low-Density Genotyping and its Potential Applications K.A. Weigel, O. González-Recio, G. de los Campos, H. Naya, N. Long, D. Gianola, and G.J.M.
John B. Cole, Ph.D. Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD, USA The U.S. genetic.
Adjustment of selection index coefficients and polygenic variance to improve regressions and reliability of genomic evaluations P. M. VanRaden, J. R. Wright*,
2007 Melvin Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA
J. B. Cole * and P. M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD
2007 Melvin Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA
WiggansCDCB industry meeting – Sept. 29, 2015 (1) George R. Wiggans Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,
G.R. Wiggans* and P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD
2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA
April 2010 (1) Prediction of Breed Composition & Multibreed Genomic Evaluations K. M. Olson and P. M. VanRaden.
Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding April 27, 2010 Interpretation of genomic breeding values from a unified, one-step national evaluation Research project.
2007 Paul VanRaden and Melvin Tooker* Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory 2010 Gains in reliability from combining subsets.
2007 Paul VanRaden 1, Jeff O’Connell 2, George Wiggans 1, Kent Weigel 3 1 Animal Improvement Programs Lab, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA 2 University of Maryland.
2007 Paul VanRaden 1, Jeff O’Connell 2, George Wiggans 1, Kent Weigel 3 1 Animal Improvement Programs Lab, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA 2 University of Maryland.
Multi-trait, multi-breed conception rate evaluations P. M. VanRaden 1, J. R. Wright 1 *, C. Sun 2, J. L. Hutchison 1 and M. E. Tooker 1 1 Animal Genomics.
Multibreed Genomic Evaluation Using Purebred Dairy Cattle K. M. Olson* 1 and P. M. VanRaden 2 1 Department of Dairy Science Virginia Polytechnic and State.
2007 Paul VanRaden, George Wiggans, Jeff O’Connell, John Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Tad Sonstegard, and Curt Van Tassell Bovine Functional.
2006 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Predicting Genetic.
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD G.R. WiggansADSA 18.
2001 ADSA Indianapolis 2001 (1) Heterosis and Breed Differences for Yield and Somatic Cell Scores of US Dairy Cattle in the 1990’s. PAUL VANRADEN Animal.
Multibreed Genomic Evaluations in Purebred Dairy Cattle K. M. Olson 1 and P. M. VanRaden 2 1 National Association of Animal Breeders 2 AIPL, ARS, USDA.
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD Select Sires‘ Holstein.
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2011 National Breeders.
2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA 2007 Genetic evaluation.
G.R. Wiggans, T. A. Cooper* and P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD
CRI – Spanish update (1) 2010 Status of Dairy Cattle Breeding in the United States Dr. H. Duane Norman Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural.
2007 Paul VanRaden 1, Curt Van Tassell 2, George Wiggans 1, Tad Sonstegard 2, Bob Schnabel 3, Jerry Taylor 3, and Flavio Schenkel 4, Paul VanRaden 1, Curt.
Meori Rosen Past, Present, and Future Dairy Cattle Breeding in Israel.
G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2011 G.R. Wiggans DNA.
My vision for dairy genomics
Y. Masuda1, I. Misztal1, P. M. VanRaden2, and T. J. Lawlor3
Cross-Breeding What is X-Breeding?.
Experiences with genomic prediction
Methods to compute reliabilities for genomic predictions of feed intake Paul VanRaden, Jana Hutchison, Bingjie Li, Erin Connor, and John Cole USDA, Agricultural.
Genomic Selection in Dairy Cattle
Increased reliability of genetic evaluations for dairy cattle in the United States from use of genomic information Abstr.
Using Haplotypes in Breeding Programs
Economics of Reproduction: the Quality of the Pregnancy
The Impact of the 1000 Bull Genomes Project and its Future
Presentation transcript:

Reliable genomic evaluations across breeds and borders Sander de Roos CRV, the Netherlands

Reliable Genomic Estimated Breeding Values (GEBVs) We all want more reliable GEBVs –more accurate selection –use young bulls with confidence REL (GEBV) ~ N * h 2 –N = size of reference population –h 2 = heritability of phenotypes Daetwyler et al Goddard 2009

Goddard & Hayes 2009

Reliable GEBVs International exchange –higher N –but h 2 is lower (r G < 1) e.g. EuroGenomics (N = 4,000  N = 16,000) –udder depth+15 % Reliability –somatic cell+11 % –fertility +7 % –protein yield +6 % Lund et al. 2011

What else can we do? Cows Other breeds Aim = outline the opportunities & challenges

Why use cows? Increase reference (ref.) population –100,000 ref. cows  24,000 ref. bulls (h 2 = 0.2) Unlimited numbers Small breeds New countries or environments (GxE) New traits Selection of females

Costs Cost for genotyping € 40 –100,000 cows x € 40 (BovineLD) = € 4,000,000 Commercial value to farmer € 10 – 30 –select best heifer calves –beef / conventional / sexed / flush –Highest Return On Investment (ROI) when selection intensity is high De Roos 2011 Pryce & Hayes 2012 Dassonneville 2012

Bias GEBV = conventional EBV + genomic info –bias due to preferential treatment –bias due to selective genotyping Strategies –adjust cow phenotypes Wiggans et al. 2011; 2012 –omit cow phenotypes –use only complete herds

CRV reference herds Herds with excellent recording –milk production, conformation, fertility, … –claw health, milk composition, (health treatment) Genotype all females –farmer pays € 15 for calves, € 0 for cows Now : 20 herds, 4,000 females Aim : 600 herds, 120,000 females

Why use other breeds? Predict GEBVs of crossbreds –crossbreds exhibit more genetic variation –e.g. Holstein production + Jersey fertility Use crossbreds in ref. population Use breed A to improve GEBVs of breed B –exploiting (SNPs very close to) causal mutations

Crossbreds Crossbreds have large chromosome segments from purebred ancestors –SNPs trace inheritance across generations F0 F1 F2

Crossbreds Crossbreds have large chromosome segments from purebred ancestors –SNPs trace inheritance across generations Phenotypes of crossbreds are useful –estimate effect of ancestral chromosome segment GEBVs of crossbreds –sum of effects of ancestral chromosome segments

Use breed A to predict in breed B QTL must exist in both breeds –requires whole genome sequence, or –BovineHD (777K), for SNP-QTL phase to persist Individual QTL have very small effects –requires extremely large ref. population and Bayesian modeling to distinguish QTL from noise Maybe some medium QTL can be captured

Examples New Zealand Holstein & Jersey Harris et al –accurate GEBVs for crossbreds Nordic Red Breeds Brøndum et al –+7% Rel. multi-breed vs. single-breed Australian Holstein & Jersey Erbe et al –+4% Rel. in Jersey by adding Holstein ref. bulls –+0% Rel. in Holstein by adding Jersey ref. bulls

Computation Assume 160,000 ref. animals, 777,000 SNPs –8x more animals, 15x more SNPs = 120x more –3 years computing Also consider imputation from LD to HD Also consider whole genome sequence

Conclusions Cows attractive to expand ref. population –higher rel., new traits, new breeds, new countries –costs still too high for large scale uptake –potential biases needs to addressed Multi-breed ref. population –straightforward in crossbred populations –many animals x dense SNPs in Bayesian modeling –computationally challenging