Genomic evaluation of binary traits in dairy cattle by considering genotype × environment interactions

Keywords: accuracy of genomic prediction, simulation, linkage disequilibrium, genetic architecture, quantitative trait loci

Abstract

Aim of study: To assess genotype by environment (G×E) interaction via single- and multi-trait animal models for binary traits in dairy cattle. 

Area of study: University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.

Material and methods: Phenotypic and genomic data were simulated considering a binary trait in four environments as different correlated traits. Heritabilities of 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20 were considered to mimic the genetic variation of the binary trait in different environments. Eight scenarios resulted from combining the number of QTLs (60 or 300), LD level (high or low), and incidence of the binary trait (10% or 30%) were simulated to compare the accuracy of predictions. For all scenarios, 1667 markers per chromosome (depicting a 50K SNP chip) were randomly spaced over 30 chromosomes. Multi-trait animal models were applied to take account of G×E interaction and to predict the genomic breeding value in different environments. Prediction accuracies obtained from the single- and multi-trait animal models were compared.

Main results: In the models with G×E interaction, the largest accuracy of 0.401 was obtained in high LD scenario with 60 QTLs, and incidence of 30% for the fourth environment. The lowest accuracy of 0.190 was achieved in low LD scenario with 300 QTLs and incidence of 10% for the first environment.

Research highlights: Genomic selection with high prediction accuracy can be possible by considering the G×E interaction during the genetic improvement programs in dairy cattle.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aguilar I, Misztal I, Johnson D, Legarra A, Tsuruta S, Lawlor T, 2010. Hot topic: A unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. J Dairy Sci 93: 743-752. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2730

Ayalew W, Aliy M, Negussie E, 2017. Estimation of genetic parameters of the productive and reproductive traits in Ethiopian Holstein using multi-trait models. As-Australas J Anim Sci 30: 1550-1556. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0198

Bloemhof S, de Jong G, de Haas Y, 2009. Genetic parameters for clinical mastitis in the first three lactations of Dutch Holstein cattle. Vet Microbiol 134: 165-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vetmic.2008.09.024

Bohlouli M, Shodja J, Alijani S, Eghbal A, 2013. The relationship between temperature-humidity index and test-day milk yield of Iranian Holstein dairy cattle using random regression model. Livest Sci 157: 414-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.09.005

Bohlouli M, Shodja J, Alijani S, Pirany N, 2014. Interaction between genotype and geographical region for milk production traits of Iranian Holstein dairy cattle. Livest Sci 169: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2014.08.010

Bohlouli M, Alijani S, Javaremi AN, König S, Yin T, 2017. Genomic prediction by considering genotype × environment interaction using different genomic architectures. Ann Anim Sci 17: 683-701. https://doi.org/10.1515/aoas-2016-0086

Bohlouli M, Alijani S, Naderi S, Yin T, König S, 2019. Prediction accuracies and genetic parameters for test-day traits from genomic and pedigree-based random regression models with or without heat stress interactions. J Dairy Sci 102: 488-502. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15329

Brügemann K, Gernand E, von Borstel U, Konig S, 2011. Genetic analyses of protein yield in dairy cows applying random regression models with time-dependent and temperature ×humidity-dependent covariates. J Dairy Sci 94: 4129-4139. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2010-4063

Budhlakoti N, Mishra DC, Rai A, Lal SB, Chaturvedi KK, Kumar RR, 2019. A comparative study of single-trait and multi-trait genomic selection. J Comput Biol 26: 1100-1112. https://doi.org/10.1089/cmb.2019.0032

Calus MP, Veerkamp R, 2007. Accuracy of breeding values when using and ignoring the polygenic effect in genomic breeding value estimation with a marker density of one SNP per cM. J Anim Breed Genet 124: 362-368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00691.x

Calus MPL, de Haas Y, Pszczola M, Veerkamp RF, 2013. Predicted accuracy of and response to genomic selection for new traits in dairy cattle. Anim 7: 183-191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731112001450

Carlén E, Jansson K, Strandberg E, 2006. Genotype by environment interaction for udder health traits studied by random regression models. Proc 8th World Congr on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, Aug 13-18. pp: 25-10.

Clark SA, Hickey JM, van der Werf JHJ, 2011. Different models of genetic variation and their effect on genomic evaluation. Genet Sel Evol 43: 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-43-18

Daetwyler HD, Villanueva B, Woolliams JA, 2008. Accuracy of predicting the genetic risk of disease using a genome-wide approach. Plos one 3: e3395. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003395

Daetwyler HD, Calus MP, Pong-Wong R, de Los Campos G, Hickey JM, 2013. Genomic prediction in animals and plants: simulation of data, validation, reporting, and benchmarking. Genetics 193: 347-365. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.147983

de Oliveira HR, Brito LF, Sargolzaei M, Silva FFE, Jamrozik J, Lourenco DAL, Schenkel FS, 2019. Impact of including information from bulls and their daughters in the training population of multiple-step genomic evaluations in dairy cattle: A simulation study. J Anim Breed Genet 136: 441-452. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbg.12407

Falconer DS, Mackay TFC, 1996. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 4th ed. Longman Group, Essex, UK.

Farah MM, Fortes MRS, Kelly M, Porto-Neto LR, Meira CT, Carreño LOD, et al., 2018. Accuracy of genomic selection predictions for hip height in Brahman cattle using different relationship matrices. Pesqu Agropec Bras 53: 717-726. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-204x2018000600008

Goddard M, 2009. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximization of long term response. Genetica 136: 245-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10709-008-9308-0

González-Recio O, Forni S, 2011. Genome-wide prediction of discrete traits using bayesian regressions and machine learning. Genet Sel Evol 43: 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-43-7

Guo G, Zhao F, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Du L, Su G, 2014. Comparison of single-trait and multiple-trait genomic prediction models. BMC Genet 15: 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-15-30

Habier D, Tetens J, Seefried FR, Lichtner P, Thaller G, 2010. The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle. Genet Sel Evol 42: 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-42-5

Haile-Mariam M, Pryce J, Schrooten C, Hayes B, 2015. Including overseas performance information in genomic evaluations of Australian dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 98: 3443-3459. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8785

Hammami H, Rekik B, Soyeurt H, Bastin C, Stoll J, Gengler N, 2008. Genotype × environment interaction for milk yield in Holsteins using Luxembourg and Tunisian populations. J Dairy Sci 91: 3661-3671. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1147

Hammami H, Rekik B, Bastin C, Soyeurt H, Bormann J, Stoll J, Gengler N, 2009. Environmental sensitivity for milk yield in Luxembourg and Tunisian Holsteins by herd management level. J Dairy Sci 92: 4604-4612. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1513

Hamrouni A, Djemali M, Bedhiaf S, 2014. Interaction between genotype and geographic region for milk production traits in Tunisian Holstein cattle. Int J Farm Alli Sci 3: 623-628. https://doi.org/10.15192/PSCP.SA.2014.3.1.710

Hayashi T, Iwata H, 2013. A Bayesian method and its variational approximation for prediction of genomic breeding values in multiple traits. BMC bioinformatics 14: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-14-34

Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AJ, Goddard ME, 2009a. Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges. J Dairy Sci 92: 433-443. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1646

Hayes BJ, Daetwyler HD, Bowman P, Moser G, Tier B, Crump R, et al., 2009b. Accuracy of genomic selection: comparing theory and results. Proc 18th Conf Assoc. Adv. of Anim. Breeding and Genetics. Barossa Valley (Australia). 18: 34-37.

Hill WG, Robertson A, 1968. Linkage disequilibrium in finite populations. Theor Appl Genet 6: 226-231. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01245622

Honarvar M, Rostami M, 2013. Accuracy of genomic prediction using RR-BLUP and Bayesian LASSO. Eur J ExpBiol 3: 42-47.

Jiang J, Zhang Q, Ma L, Li J, Wang Z, Liu JF, 2015. Joint prediction of multiple quantitative traits using a Bayesian multivariate antedependence model. Heredity 115: 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2015.9

Jia Y, Jannink JL, 2012. Multiple-trait genomic selection methods increase genetic value prediction accuracy. Genetics 192: 1513-1522. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.144246

Karaman E, Lund M, Anche M, Janss L, Su G, 2018. Genomic prediction using multi-trait weighted GBLUP accounting for heterogeneous variances and covariances across the genome. G3- Genes Genom Genet 8: 3549-3558. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.118.200673

Kolmodin R, Strandberg E, Madsen P, Jensen J, Jorjani H, 2002. Genotype by environment interaction in Nordic dairy cattle studied by use of reaction norms. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci 52: 11-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064700252806380

König S, Simianer H, Willam A, 2009. Economic evaluation of genomic breeding programs. J Dairy Sci 92: 382-391. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-1310

Meuwissen THE, 2009. Accuracy of breeding values of unrelated'individuals predicted by dense SNP genotyping. Genet Sel Evol 41: 41-35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-41-35

Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Lourenço D, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Vitezica Z, 2015. Manual for BLUPF90 family of programs. University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.

Mulder HA, Bijma P, 2005. Effects of genotype x environment interaction on genetic gain in breeding programs. J Anim Sci 83: 49-61. https://doi.org/10.2527/2005.83149x

Naderi Y, Sadeghi S, 2020. The importance of disease incidence rate on performance of GBLUP, threshold BayesA and machine learning methods in original and imputed data set. Span J Agric Res 18 (3): e0405. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2020183-15228

Naderi S, Yin T, König S, 2016. Random forest estimation of genomic breeding values for disease susceptibility over different disease incidences and genomic architectures in simulated cow calibration groups. J Dairy Sci 99: 7261-7273. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-10887

Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MAR, Bender D, Maller J, Sklar P, de Bakker PIW, Daly MJ, Sham PC, 2007. PLINK: A tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am J Hum Genet 81: 559-575. https://doi.org/10.1086/519795

Robertson A, 1959. The sampling variance of the genetic correlation coefficient. Biometrics 15: 469-485. https://doi.org/10.2307/2527750

Saatchi M, Miraei-Ashtiani SR, Nejati-Javaremi A, Moradi-Shahrebabak M, Mehrabani-Yeganeh H, 2010. The impact of information quantity and strength of relationship between training set and validation set on accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values. Afr J Biotechnol 9: 438-442.

Santana Jr ML, Eler JP, Cardoso FF, Albuquerque LG, Bignardi AB, Ferraz JBS, 2012. Genotype by environment interaction for birth and weaning weights of composite beef cattle in different regions of Brazil. Livest Sci 149: 242-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2012.07.017

Sargolzaei M, Schenkel FS, 2009. QMSim: a large-scale genome simulator for livestock. Bioinformatics 25: 680-681. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btp045

SAS, 2004. Statistical Analysis System/STAT User guide 9.1.2, SAS Inst. Inc, Cary, NC, USA.

Schefers JM, Weigel KA, 2012. Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Integration of DNA testing into breeding programs. Anim Front 2: 4-9. https://doi.org/10.2527/af.2011-0032

Scheper C, Wensch-Dorendorf M, Yin T, Dressel H, Swalve H, König S, 2016. Evaluation of breeding strategies for polledness in dairy cattle using a newly developed simulation framework for quantitative and Mendelian traits. Genet Sel Evol 48: 50. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-016-0228-7

Silva RMO, Evenhuis JP, Vallejo RL, Gao G, Martin KE, Leeds TD, et al., 2019. Whole-genome mapping of quantitative trait loci and accuracy of genomic predictions for resistance to columnaris disease in two rainbow trout breeding populations. Genet Sel Evol 51: 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-019-0484-4

Sun C, VanRaden PM, Cole JB, O'Connell JR, 2014. Improvement of prediction ability for genomic selection of dairy cattle by including dominance effects. Plos one 9: e103934. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0103934

Tiezzi F, Parker Gaddis JSC, Maltecca C, 2015. Accounting for genotype by environment interaction in genomic predictions for US Holstein dairy cattle. Interbull Bull No. 49, July 09-12. Orlando, FL, USA.

Tiezzi F, Arceo ME, Cole JB, Maltecca C, 2018. Including gene networks to predict calving difficulty in Holstein, Brown Swiss and Jersey cattle. BMC Genet 19: 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-018-0606-y

Tsuruta S, Misztal I, Aguilar I, Lawlor TJ, 2011. Multiple-trait genomic evaluation of linear type traits using genomic and phenotypic data in US Holsteins. J Dairy Sci 94: 4198-4204. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4256

VanRaden PM, 2008. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci 91: 4414-4423. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0980

VanRaden PM, Sullivan PG, 2010. International genomic evaluation methods for dairy cattle. Genet Sel Evol 42: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-42-7

Wang C, Li X, Qian R, Su G, Zhang Q, Ding X, 2017. Bayesian methods for jointly estimating genomic breeding values of one continuous and one threshold trait. Plos one 12: e0175448. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0175448

Wang CL, Ding XD, Wang JY, Liu JF, Fu WX, Zhang Z, et al., 2013. Bayesian methods for estimating GEBVs of threshold traits. Heredity 110: 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1038/hdy.2012.65

Yao C, de Los Campos G, VandeHaar M, Spurlock D, Armentano L, Coffey M, et al., 2017. Use of genotype × environment interaction model to accommodate genetic heterogeneity for residual feed intake, dry matter intake, net energy in milk, and metabolic body weight in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 100: 2007-2016. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2016-11606

Yin T, Pimentel ECG, König U, Borstel V, König S, 2014. Strategy for the simulation and analysis of longitudinal phenotypic and genomic data in the context of a temperature× humidity-dependent covariate. J Dairy Sci 97: 2444-2454. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7143

Published
2022-02-18
How to Cite
EteqadiB., RafatS. A., AlijaniS., KönigS., & BohlouliM. (2022). Genomic evaluation of binary traits in dairy cattle by considering genotype × environment interactions. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 20(1), e0401. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2022201-17417
Section
Animal breeding, genetics and reproduction