Impact of fitting dominance and additive effects on accuracy of genomic prediction of breeding values in layers. (30th June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Heidaritabar, M.; Wolc, A.; Arango, J.; Zeng, J.; Settar, P.; Fulton, J.E.; O'Sullivan, N.P.; Bastiaansen, J.W.M.; Fernando, R.L.; Garrick, D.J.; Dekkers, J.C.M.
• Is Part Of: Journal of animal breeding and genetics. Volume 133:Number 5(2016)
• Page Start: 334
• Page End: 346
• Publication Date: 2016-06-30
• Subjects: Additive effect -- dominance effect -- genomic selection -- layer; Livestock -- Breeding -- Periodicals; Livestock -- Genetics -- Periodicals; 636.0820
• DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12225
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0931-2668

Abstract

Summary: Most genomic prediction studies fit only additive effects in models to estimate genomic breeding values (GEBV). However, if dominance genetic effects are an important source of variation for complex traits, accounting for them may improve the accuracy of GEBV. We investigated the effect of fitting dominance and additive effects on the accuracy of GEBV for eight egg production and quality traits in a purebred line of brown layers using pedigree or genomic information (42K single‐nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel). Phenotypes were corrected for the effect of hatch date. Additive and dominance genetic variances were estimated using genomic‐based [genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP)‐REML and BayesC] and pedigree‐based (PBLUP‐REML) methods. Breeding values were predicted using a model that included both additive and dominance effects and a model that included only additive effects. The reference population consisted of approximately 1800 animals hatched between 2004 and 2009, while approximately 300 young animals hatched in 2010 were used for validation. Accuracy of prediction was computed as the correlation between phenotypes and estimated breeding values of the validation animals divided by the square root of the estimate of heritability in the whole population. The proportion of dominance variance to total phenotypic variance ranged from 0.03 to 0.22 with PBLUP‐REML across traits, from 0 to 0.03 with GBLUP‐REML and from 0.01 to 0.05 with BayesC. Accuracies of GEBV ranged from 0.28 to 0.60 across traits. Inclusion of dominance effects did not improve the accuracy of GEBV, and differences in their accuracies between genomic‐based methods were small (0.01–0.05), with GBLUP‐REML yielding higher prediction accuracies than BayesC for egg production, egg colour and yolk weight, while BayesC yielded higher accuracies than GBLUP‐REML for the other traits. In conclusion, fitting dominance effects did not impact accuracy of genomic prediction of breeding values in this population.