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.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

2007 Paul VanRaden, Mel Tooker, and Nicolas Gengler Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD, USA, and Gembloux Agricultural U., Belgium

Advertisements

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.

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.

2007 Paul VanRaden and Jeff O’Connell Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD U MD College of Medicine, Baltimore, MD

2007 Paul VanRaden, George Wiggans, Jeff O’Connell, John Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Tad Sonstegard, and Curt Van Tassell Bovine Functional.

G.R. Wiggans 1, T.S. Sonstegard 1, P.M. VanRaden 1, L.K. Matukumalli 1,2, R.D. Schnabel 3, J.F. Taylor 3, J.P. Chesnais 4, F.S. Schenkel 5, and C.P. Van.

2007 Paul VanRaden 1, Curt Van Tassell 2, George Wiggans 1, Tad Sonstegard 2, Jeff O’Connell 1, Bob Schnabel 3, Jerry Taylor 3, and Flavio Schenkel 4,

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.

2007 Paul VanRaden 1, George Wiggans 1, Curt Van Tassell 2, Tad Sonstegard 2, Jeff O’Connell 1, Bob Schnabel 3, Jerry Taylor 3, and Flavio Schenkel 4,

WiggansARS Big Data Workshop – July 16, 2015 (1) George R. Wiggans Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,

Changes in the use of young bulls K. M. Olson* 1, J. L. Hutchison 2, P. M. VanRaden 2, and H. D. Norman 2 1 National Association of Animal Breeders, Columbia,

Impacts of inclusion of foreign data in genomic evaluation of dairy cattle K. M. Olson 1, P. M. VanRaden 2, D. J. Null 2, and M. E. Tooker 2 1 National.

2007 J. B. Cole 1,*, P. M. VanRaden 1, J. R. O'Connell 3, C. P. Van Tassell 1,2, T. S. Sonstegard 2, R. D. Schnabel 4, J. F. Taylor 4, and G. R. Wiggans.

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.

Wiggans, 2013SRUC Imputation (1) Dr. George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD ,

2007 Paul VanRaden, Curt Van Tassell, George Wiggans, Tad Sonstegard, and Jeff O’Connell Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory and Bovine Functional Genomics.

Wiggans, th WCGALP (1) G.R. Wiggans*, T.A. Cooper, D.J. Null, and P.M. VanRaden Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory Agricultural Research.

Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2013 Paul VanRaden University.

Bovine Genomics The Technology and its Applications Gerrit Kistemaker Chief Geneticist, Canadian Dairy Network (CDN) Many slides were created by.

2007 Paul VanRaden and Mel Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA

2007 Paul VanRaden, George Wiggans, Jeff O’Connell, John Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Tad Sonstegard, and Curt Van Tassell Bovine Functional.

John B. Cole 1, Daniel J. Null *1, Chuanyu Sun 2, and Paul M. VanRaden 1 1 Animal Genomics and Improvement 2 Sexing Technologies Laboratory Navasota, TX.

2007 Paul VanRaden, Mel Tooker, Jan Wright, Chuanyu Sun, and Jana Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD National Association of Animal.

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Lab, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA 2009 Mixing Different SNP Densities Mixing Different.

2007 Melvin Tooker and Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Lab, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA 2009 Happy Bulls, Happy Cows,

2007 Paul VanRaden, George Wiggans, Jeff O’Connell, John Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Tad Sonstegard, and Curt Van Tassell Bovine Functional.

T. A. Cooper and G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD Council.

Adjustment of selection index coefficients and polygenic variance to improve regressions and reliability of genomic evaluations P. M. VanRaden, J. R. Wright*,

Jeff O’ConnellInterbull annual meeting, Orlando, FL, July 2015 (1) J. R. O’Connell 1 and P. M. VanRaden 2 1 University of Maryland School of Medicine,

2007 Paul VanRaden and Jan Wright Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD 2013 Measuring genomic pre-selection in theory.

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Lab, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA Pete Sullivan Canadian Dairy Network, Guelph, ON, Canada

Paul VanRaden, 1 Katie Olson, 2 Dan Null, 1 Mehdi Sargolzaei, 3 Marco Winters, 4 and Jan-Thijs van Kaam 5 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, ARS,

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

G.R. Wiggans 1, T.S. Sonstegard 1, P.M. VanRaden 1, L.K. Matukumalli 1,2, R.D. Schnabel 3, J.F. Taylor 3, F.S. Schenkel 4, and C.P. Van Tassell 1 1 Agricultural.

G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD 2009 G.R. WiggansCouncil.

G.R. Wiggans* and P.M. VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD

2007 Paul VanRaden, Melvin Tooker*, George Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory 2009 Can you believe those genomic.

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA

P. M. VanRaden and T. A. Cooper * Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA

George R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Select Sires’

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.

Paul VanRaden and Chuanyu Sun Animal Genomics and Improvement Lab USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD, USA National Association of Animal Breeders Columbia, MO, USA.

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.

P.M. VanRaden and D.M. Bickhart Animal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD Iterative combination of national phenotype, genotype, pedigree,

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.

2005 Paul VanRaden and Mel Tooker Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Beltsville, MD Genetic.

G.R. Wiggans* 1, P.M. VanRaden 1, L.R. Bacheller 1, F.A. Ross, Jr. 1, M.E. Tooker 1, J.L. Hutchison 1, T.S. Sonstegard 2, and C.P. Van Tassell 1,2 1 Animal.

2007 John Cole, Paul VanRaden, George Wiggans, and Melvin Kuhn Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD,

G.R. Wiggans Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD G.R. WiggansADSA 18.

2007 Paul VanRaden, Dan Null, Katie Olson, Jana Hutchison Animal Improvement Programs Lab, Beltsville, MD National Association of Animal Breeders, Columbia,

G.R. Wiggans 1, T. A. Cooper 1 *, K.M. Olson 2 and P.M. VanRaden 1 1 Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville,

2007 Paul VanRaden, George Wiggans, Jeff O’Connell, John Cole, Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Tad Sonstegard, and Curt Van Tassell Bovine Functional.

2007 Paul VanRaden Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA 2008 New.

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 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.

T. A. Cooper Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory Agricultural Research Service, USDA Beltsville, MD NAAB meeting April 2010.

My vision for dairy genomics

Methods to compute reliabilities for genomic predictions of feed intake Paul VanRaden, Jana Hutchison, Bingjie Li, Erin Connor, and John Cole USDA, Agricultural.

Genomic Evaluations.

Predictions of Breed Composition Using Holsteins, Jersey, and Brown Swiss Genotypes K. M. Olson and P. M. VanRaden.

Using Haplotypes in Breeding Programs

Presentation transcript:

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 School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA 3 University of Wisconsin Dept. Dairy Science, Madison, WI, USA 2010 Genomic Evaluation with Many More Genotypes and Phenotypes Genomic Evaluation with Many More Genotypes and Phenotypes

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (2)Paul VanRaden 2010 Topics  Methods to combine different marker densities and datasets  More markers: 500,000 simulation  More animals: 3,000 marker subset  More breeds: multi-trait markers  More traits: same genotype cost

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (3)Paul VanRaden 2010 Methods to Trace Inheritance  Few markers Pedigree needed Prob (paternal or maternal alleles inherited) computed within families  Many markers Can find matching DNA segments without pedigree Prob (haplotypes are identical) mostly near 0 or 1 if segments contain many markers

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (4)Paul VanRaden 2010 Haplotype Probabilities with Few Markers (12 SNP / chromosome)

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (5)Paul VanRaden 2010 Haplotype Probabilities with More Markers (50 SNP / chromosome)

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (6)Paul VanRaden 2010 Haplotyping Program findhap.f90  Begin with population haplotyping Divide chromosomes into segments, ~250 SNP / segment List haplotypes by genotype match Similar to FastPhase, IMPUTE, or long range phasing  End with pedigree haplotyping Detect crossover, fix noninheritance Impute nongenotyped ancestors

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (7)Paul VanRaden 2010 Recent Program Revisions  Improved imputation and reliability  Changes since January 2010 Use known haplotype if second is unknown Use current instead of base frequency Combine parent haplotypes if crossover is detected Begin search with parent or grandparent haplotypes Store 2 most popular progeny haplotypes  Simulated crossover rate increased

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (8)Paul VanRaden 2010 Coding of Alleles and Segments  Genotypes 0 = BB, 1 = AB or BA, 2 = AA 3 = B_, 4 = A_, 5 = __ (missing) Allele frequency used for missing  Haplotypes 0 = B, 1 = not known, 2 = A  Segment inheritance (example) Son has haplotype numbers 5 and 8 Sire has haplotype numbers 8 and 21 Son got haplotype number 5 from dam

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (9)Paul VanRaden 2010 Most Frequent Haplotypes Most Frequent Haplotypes 1st segment of chromosome % % % % % % % % % % For efficiency, store haplotypes just once. Most frequent haplotype in Holsteins had 4,316 copies =.0516 * 41,822 animals * 2 chromosomes each

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (10)Paul VanRaden 2010 Population Haplotyping Steps  Put first genotype into haplotype list  Check next genotype against list Do any homozygous loci conflict? – If haplotype conflicts, continue search – If match, fill any unknown SNP with homozygote – 2 nd haplotype = genotype minus 1 st haplotype – Search for 2 nd haplotype in rest of list If no match in list, add to end of list  Sort list to put frequent haplotypes 1st

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (11)Paul VanRaden 2010 Check New Genotype Against List Check New Genotype Against List 1st segment of chromosome % % % % % Get 2 nd haplotype by removing 1 st from genotype: Search for 1 st haplotype that matches genotype: % % % % %

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (12)Paul VanRaden 2010 Simulated 500K Tests  How many 500K genotypes needed?  Is computation affordable?  Two subsets of mixed 500K and 50K: Of 33,414 HO, only 1,406 (young) had 500K Also bulls > 99% reliability, total 3,726  Linkage generated in base population Efficient and similar to autoregressive Linkage affects gain from more markers

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (13)Paul VanRaden 2010 Holstein Linkage Disequilibrium

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (14)Paul VanRaden 2010 Simulated Linkage

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (15)Paul VanRaden 2010 Computer Requirements 500,000 markers, 33,414 animals StepGbytesCPU hours Simulate genotypes391.8 Pop’n haplotypes21.2 Pedigree haplotypes31.8 Store genotypes13- Store haplotypes3- Iterate allele effects (for 5 traits) 830

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (16)Paul VanRaden 2010 Measures of Haplotyping Success  Does estimated = true genotype?  Does estimated = true linkage for adjacent heterozygous markers?  Does estimated = true paternity?  How many alleles remain missing?  What is the error rate (Druet, 2010)?  What is corr 2 (estimated, true genotype)?  Are resulting GEBVs reliable?

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (17)Paul VanRaden K Imputation Results # 500K01,4063,79833,414 Percentages:50K50K & 500K500K Missing before Missing after Errors (young) Errors (old) Reliability Gain vs. 50K

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (18)Paul VanRaden K Imputation Results # 500K=01,4063,79833,414 % wrong50K50K & 500K500K GenotypeYng Old LinkageYng Old PaternityYng Old

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (19)Paul VanRaden 2010 Imputation Summary  1,406 young animals genotyped at 500K REL gain 0.8% vs. 1.4% with all 500K Imputation better if ancestors also genotyped Could genotype additional reference bulls instead of re-genotyping bulls already done  32,008 animals imputed from 50K 10% SNP known before, 93% after 97-98% of 500K genotypes correct.839 squared correlation (estimated, true genotype)

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (20)Paul VanRaden 2010 Multi-Breed Genomic Evaluation  Treat allele effects as independent, same, or correlated, using data of 5,331 purebred Holsteins, 1,361 purebred Jerseys, and 506 purebred Brown Swiss

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (21)Paul VanRaden 2010 Protein Yield R 2 SNP effects for breeds: HolsteinJerseyBrown Swiss None (PA) Independent Same Correlated Optimum correlation was.3 with 43K markers, and would be larger with more markers

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (22)Paul VanRaden 2010 Correlation with Single-Breed GEBV

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (23)Paul VanRaden 2010 Fewer Markers, More Animals Fewer Markers, More Animals  Half of young animals assigned 3K Proven bulls, cows all had 43K Dams imputed using 43K and 3K  Half of ALL animals assigned 3K Could 3K reference animals help? 10,000 proven bulls yet to genotype Should cows with 3K be predictors?

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (24)Paul VanRaden 2010 Reliability from 3K, 43K Mixture Chips3K3K and 43K43K # 43KN = 0½ All½ Young40,351 Missing %: Before After.0531 Reliability % Rel - PA Rel

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (25)Paul VanRaden 2010 Correlations 2 of 3K and PA with 43K Genotyped ancestors had 43K  Consistent gains across traits Reliability gain from progeny with 3K was 79-87% of gain from 43K Gain % = [Corr(3K,43K) 2 - Corr(PA,43K) 2 ] / [1 - Corr(PA,43K) 2 ]  Large benefits for smaller cost

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (26)Paul VanRaden 2010 Conclusions - 1  Missing genotypes can be filled easily Population and pedigree haplotyping can both process long segments efficiently Imputing 500,000 SNP for 33,414 Holsteins required 3 Gbyte memory, 3 CPU hours  Haplotyping implemented for April 2010 routine U.S. evaluation Several recent improvements to accuracy Ready to include lower or higher density genotypes in evaluations

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (27)Paul VanRaden 2010 Conclusions - 2  More markers improved reliability < 2% 1,406 high density genotypes sufficient 32,008 other animals imputed from 50K to 500K in simulation  Fewer markers can decrease cost  More animals can greatly increase reliability and selection differential  Multi-breed model improves reliability only slightly (< 1%) at current density

9WCGALP, Leipzig, Germany, August 2010 (28)Paul VanRaden 2010 Acknowledgments  Katie Olson computed the multibreed genomic evaluation  Mel Tooker assisted with graphics and computation  Bob Schnabel helped improve marker locations on the map