[en] BACKGROUND: Genomic selection has been successfully implemented in many livestock and crop species. The genomic best linear unbiased predictor (GBLUP) approach, assigning equal variance to all SNP effects, is one of the reference methods. When large-effect variants contribute to complex traits, it has been shown that genomic prediction methods that assign a higher variance to subsets of SNP effects can achieve higher prediction accuracy. We herein compared the efficiency of several such approaches, including the Adaptive MultiBLUP (AM-BLUP) that uses local genomic relationship matrices (GRM) to automatically identify and weight genomic regions with large effects, to predict genetic merit in Belgian Blue beef cattle. RESULTS: We used a population of approximately 10,000 genotyped cows and their phenotypes for 14 traits, mostly related to muscular development and body dimensions. According to the trait, we found that 4 to 25% of the genetic variance could be associated with 2 to 12 genomic regions harbouring large-effect variants. Noteworthy, three previously identified recessive deleterious variants presented heterozygote advantage and were among the most significant SNPs for several traits. The AM-BLUP resulted in increased reliability of genomic predictions compared to GBLUP (+ 2%), but Bayesian methods proved more efficient (+ 3%). Overall, the reliability gains remained thus limited although higher gains were observed for skin thickness, a trait affected by two genomic regions having particularly large effects. Higher accuracies than those from the original AM-BLUP were achieved when applying the Bayesian Sparse Linear Mixed Model to pre-select groups of SNPs with large effects and subsequently use their estimated variance to build a weighted GRM. Finally, the single-step GBLUP performed best and could be further improved (+ 3% prediction accuracy) by using these weighted GRM. CONCLUSIONS: The AM-BLUP is an attractive method to automatically identify and weight genomic regions with large effects on complex traits. However, the method was less accurate than Bayesian methods. Overall, weighted methods achieved modest accuracy gains compared to GBLUP. Nevertheless, the computational efficiency of the AM-BLUP might be valuable at higher marker density, including with whole-genome sequencing data. Furthermore, weighted GRM are particularly useful to account for large variance loci in the single-step GBLUP.
Disciplines :
Genetics & genetic processes Animal production & animal husbandry
Aguilar I, Misztal I, Johnson DL, Legarra A, Tsuruta S, Lawlor TJ. Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. J Dairy Sci. 2010;93:743-52. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2009-2730.
Christensen OF, Lund MS. Genomic relationship matrix when some animals are not genotyped genomic prediction models. Genet Sel Evol. 2010;42:1-8 http://www.gsejournal.org/content/42/1/2.
Amin N, van Duijn CM, Aulchenko YS. A genomic background based method for association analysis in related individuals. PLoS One. 2007;2:e1274.
Hayes BJ, Pryce J, Chamberlain AJ, Bowman PJ, Goddard ME. Genetic architecture of complex traits and accuracy of genomic prediction: coat colour, Milk-fat percentage, and type in Holstein cattle as contrasting model traits. PLoS Genet. 2010;6:e1001139.
Erbe M, Hayes BJ, Matukumalli LK, Goswami S, Bowman PJ, Reich CM, et al. Improving accuracy of genomic predictions within and between dairy cattle breeds with imputed high-density single nucleotide polymorphism panels. J Dairy Sci. 2012;95:4114-29.
Zhou X, Carbonetto P, Stephens M. Polygenic modeling with Bayesian sparse linear mixed models. PLoS Genet. 2013;9:e1003264.
Moser G, Lee SH, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME, Wray NR, Visscher PM. Simultaneous discovery, estimation and prediction analysis of complex traits using a Bayesian mixture model. PLoS Genet. 2015;11:1-22.
Tiezzi F, Maltecca C. Accounting for trait architecture in genomic predictions of US Holstein cattle using a weighted realized relationship matrix. Genet Sel Evol. 2015;47:1-13.
Su G, Christensen OF, Janss L, Lund MS. Comparison of genomic predictions using genomic relationship matrices built with different weighting factors to account for locus-specific variances. J Dairy Sci. 2014;97:6547-59.
Calus MPL, Schrooten C, Veerkamp RF. Genomic prediction of breeding values using previously estimated SNP variances. Genet Sel Evol. 2014;46:1-13.
Wang H, Misztal I, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Muir WM. Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes. Genet Res (Camb). 2012;94:73-83.
Zhang X, Lourenco D, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Misztal I. Weighting strategies for single-step genomic BLUP: An iterative approach for accurate calculation of GEBV and GWAS. Front Genet. 2016;7:1-14.
Lourenco D, Fragomeni BO, Bradford HL, Menezes IR, Ferraz JBS, Aguilar I, et al. Implications of SNP weighting on single-step genomic predictions for different reference population sizes. J Anim Breed Genet. 2017;134:463-71.
Fragomeni BO, Lourenco D, Masuda Y, Legarra A, Misztal I. Incorporation of causative quantitative trait nucleotides in single-step GBLUP. Genet Sel Evol. 2017;49:1-11.
Legarra A, Robert-Granié C, Croiseau P, Guillaume F, Fritz S. Improved Lasso for genomic selection. Genet Res (Camb). 2011;93:77-87.
Yang J, Lee SH, Goddard ME, Visscher PM. GCTA: a tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. Am J Hum Genet. 2011;88:76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.11.011.
Finucane HK, Bulik-Sullivan B, Gusev A, Trynka G, Reshef Y, Loh PR, et al. Partitioning heritability by functional annotation using genome-wide association summary statistics. Nat Genet. 2015;47:1228-35.
Cebamanos L, Gray A, Stewart I, Tenesa A. Regional heritability advanced complex trait analysis for GPU and traditional parallel architectures. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:1177-9.
Nagamine Y, Pong-Wong R, Navarro P, Vitart V, Hayward C, Rudan I, et al. Localising loci underlying complex trait variation using regional genomic relationship mapping. PLoS One. 2012;7:e46501.
Liu A, Sandø M, Didier L, Emre B, Sebastien K, Pedersen G, et al. Improvement of genomic prediction by integrating additional single nucleotide polymorphisms selected from imputed whole genome sequencing data. Heredity (Edinb). 2020;124:37-49. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41437-019-0246-7.
Andersson L, Archibald AL, Bottema CD, Brauning R, Burgess SC, Burt DW, et al. Coordinated international action to accelerate genome-to-phenome with FAANG, the functional annotation of animal genomes project. Genome Biol. 2015;16:4-9.
Xiang R, Van Den Berg I, MacLeod IM, Hayes BJ, Prowse-Wilkins CP, Wang M, et al. Quantifying the contribution of sequence variants with regulatory and evolutionary significance to 34 bovine complex traits. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116:19398-408.
Grobet L, Pirottin D, Farnir F, Poncelet D, Royo LJ, Brouwers B, et al. Modulating skeletal muscle mass by postnatal, muscle-specific inactivation of the myostatin gene. Genesis. 1997;35:227-38.
Druet T, Ahariz N, Cambisano N, Tamma N, Michaux C, Coppieters W, et al. Selection in action: dissecting the molecular underpinnings of the increasing muscle mass of Belgian blue cattle. BMC Genomics. 2014;15:1-12.
Fasquelle C, Sartelet A, Li W, Dive M, Tamma N, Michaux C, et al. Balancing selection of a frame-shift mutation in the MRC2 gene accounts for the outbreak of the crooked tail syndrome in Belgian blue cattle. PLoS Genet. 2009;5:e1000666.
Sartelet A, Druet T, Michaux C, Fasquelle C, Géron S, Tamma N, et al. A splice site variant in the bovine rnf11 gene compromises growth and regulation of the inflammatory response. PLoS Genet. 2012;8:e1002581.
Takasuga A. PLAG1 and NCAPG-LCORL in livestock. Anim Sci J. 2016;87:159-67.
Bouwman AC, Daetwyler HD, Chamberlain AJ, Ponce CH, Sargolzaei M, Schenkel FS, et al. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for cattle stature identifies common genes that regulate body size in mammals. Nat Genet. 2018;50:362-7.
Gudbjartsson DF, Walters GB, Thorleifsson G, Stefansson H, Halldorsson BV, Zusmanovich P, et al. Many sequence variants affecting diversity of adult human height. Nat Genet. 2008;40:609-15.
Vaysse A, Ratnakumar A, Derrien T, Axelsson E, Pielberg GR, Sigurdsson S, et al. Identification of genomic regions associated with phenotypic variation between dog breeds using selection mapping. PLoS Genet. 2011;7:e1002316.
Petersen JL, Mickelson JR, Rendahl AK, Valberg SJ, Andersson LS, Axelsson J, et al. Genome-wide analysis reveals selection for important traits in domestic horse breeds. PLoS Genet. 2013;9:e1003211.
Charlier C, Li W, Harland C, Littlejohn M, Coppieters W, Creagh F, et al. NGS-based reverse genetic screen for common embryonic lethal mutations compromising fertility in livestock. Genome Res. 2016;26:1333-41.
Charlier C, Coppieters W, Rollin F, Desmecht D, Agerholm JS, Cambisano N, et al. Highly effective SNP-based association mapping and management of recessive defects in livestock. Nat Genet. 2008;40:449-54.
Seitz JJ, Schmutz SM, Thue TD, Buchanan FC. A missense mutation in the bovine MGF gene is associated with the roan phenotype in Belgian blue and shorthorn cattle. Mamm Genome. 1999;10:710-2.
Teissier M, Larroque H, Robert-Granié C. Weighted single-step genomic BLUP improves accuracy of genomic breeding values for protein content in French dairy goats: a quantitative trait influenced by a major gene. Genet Sel Evol. 2018;50:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-018-0400-3.
Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Lourenco D, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Vitezica Z. BLUPF90 family of programs; 2015.
Druet T, Pérez-Pardal L, Charlier C, Gautier M. Identification of large selective sweeps associated with major genes in cattle. Anim Genet. 2013;44:758-62.
Pocrnic I, Lourenco D, Masuda Y, Misztal I. Dimensionality of genomic information and performance of the algorithm for proven and young for different livestock species. Genet Sel Evol. 2016;48:1-9.
Macleod IM, Bowman PJ, Vander JCJ, Kemper KE, Chamberlain AJ, Schrooten C, et al. Exploiting biological priors and sequence variants enhances QTL discovery and genomic prediction of complex traits. BMC Genomics. 2016:1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-2443-6.
Karaman E, Cheng H, Firat MZ, Garrick DJ, Fernando RL. An upper bound for accuracy of prediction using GBLUP. PLoS One. 2016;11:1-18.
Pocrnic I, Lourenco D, Chen CY, Herring WO, Misztal I. Crossbred evaluations using single-step genomic BLUP and algorithm for proven and young with different sources of data. J Anim Sci. 2019;97:1513-22.
Fernando RL, Cheng H, Golden BL, Garrick DJ. Computational strategies for alternative single-step Bayesian regression models with large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals. Genet Sel Evol. 2016;48:1-8.
Goddard M. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica. 2009;136:245-57.
Boichard D, Chung H, Dassonneville R, David X, Eggen A, Fritz S, et al. Design of a bovine low-density snp array optimized for imputation. PLoS One. 2012;7:1-10.
Browning SR, Browning BL. Rapid and accurate haplotype phasing and missing-data inference for whole-genome association studies by use of localized haplotype clustering. Am J Hum Genet. 2007;81:1084-97.
Astle W, Balding DJ. Population structure and cryptic relatedness in genetic association studies. Stat Sci. 2009;24:451-71.
Bouwman AC, Hayes BJ, Calus MPL. Estimated allele substitution effects underlying genomic evaluation models depend on the scaling of allele counts. Genet Sel Evol. 2017;49:1-13.
Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Strabel T, Auvray B, Druet T, Lee D. Blupf90 and related programs (BGF90). Montpellier: Commun. No. 28-07 in Proc. 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production; 2002. p. 2001-2. August 19-23.
Bush WS, Moore JH. Chapter 11: genome-wide association studies. PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8:e1002822.
Visscher PM, Thompson R, Haley CS. Confidence intervals in QTL mapping by bootstrapping. Genetics. 1996;143:1013-20.
Barbieri MM, Berger JO. Optimal predictive model selection. Ann Stat. 2004;32:870-97.
Gualdrón Duarte JL, Cantet RJC, Bates RO, Ernst CW, Raney NE, Steibel JP. Rapid screening for phenotype-genotype associations by linear transformations of genomic evaluations. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15:1-11.
Fragomeni BO, Lourenco D, Legarra A, VanRaden PM, Misztal I. Alternative SNP weighting for single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor evaluation of stature in US Holsteins in the presence of selected sequence variants. J Dairy Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2019-16262.
Zhang Z, Guillaume F, Sartelet A, Charlier C, Georges M, Farnir F, et al. Ancestral haplotype-based association mapping with generalized linear mixed models accounting for stratification. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:2467-73.