Inbreeding and Genetic Gain in the Presence of Random Mating and Mate Allocation Using Genomic-Pedigree Relationships in Chickens: A Simulation Study

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
V. Nikoonejad Fard
H. Mehrabani Yeganeh
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Tehran, P. O Box: 31587-11167, Karaj, Alborz, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Abstract
In this simulation study, Mate Allocation (MA) strategy using combined genomic-pedigree information was compared with Random Mating (RM) aiming at controlling the level of inbreeding (ΔF) with minimum impacts on the amounts of Genetic Gain (ΔG) in poultry breeding programs. Five equally-sized subpopulations of chickens (P1 to P5) were simulated. A genome encompassing five chromosomes involving 15,000 bi-allelic markers was defined for each bird. Potentially, 500 QTL impacted a trait, which had a heritability of 0.1. Only pedigree information was assumed to be available in P1 while the percent of genotyped birds were 10% in P2, 20% in P3, and 50% in P4 and P5. Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs) were computed using the traditional approach (PBLUP) and the Single-Step method (SSGBLUP). In P5, early predictions were applied to estimate GEBVs. Comparisons were made based on the reductions in ΔF and changes in ΔG between two mating scenarios and two evaluation methods within and across subpopulations, respectively. After seven generations, MA resulted in 20 to 30% less ΔF within subpopulations compared with RM with negligible impacts on ΔG. Furthermore, in both mating scenarios, SSGBLUP brought about 11 to 61% less ΔF compared to PBLUP across subpopulations. Results indicated that the benefits of using combined genomic-pedigree relationships could be more than improving the accuracy of EBVs through the SSGBLUP as they can also be used in mating designs to restrict ΔF with a minimum impact on ΔG. Also, this study verified that SSGBLUP could bring about lower ΔF compared with PBLUP.

Keywords

Subjects

Alemu, S.W., Calus, M.P.L., Muir, W.M., Peeters, K., Vereijken, A. and Bijma, P. 2016. Genomic prediction of survival time in a population of brown laying hens showing cannibalistic behavior. Genet. Sel. Evol., 48: 1–10.
Brinker, T., Raymond, B., Bijma, P., Vereijken, A. and Ellen, E.D. 2017. Estimation of total genetic effects for survival time in crossbred laying hens showing cannibalism, using pedigree or genomic information. J. Anim. Breed. Genet., 134: 60–68.
Chen, C.Y., Misztal, I., Aguilar, I., Tsuruta, S., Meuwissen, T.H.E., Aggrey, S.E., Wing, T. and Muir, W.M. 2011. Genome-wide marker-assisted selection combining all pedigree phenotypic information with genotypic data in one step: An example using broiler chickens. J. Anim. Sci., 89: 23–28.
Christensen, O.F. and Lund, M.S. 2010. Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genet. Sel. Evol., 42: 1–8.
Christensen, O.F., Madsen, P., Nielsen, B., Ostersen, T. and Su, G. 2012. Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs. Animal., 6: 1565–1571.
Daetwyler, H.D., Villanueva, B., Bijma, P. and Woolliams, J.A. 2007. Inbreeding in genome-wide selection. J. Anim. Breed. Genet., 124: 369–376.
Hayes, B.J., Bowman, P.J., Chamberlain, A.J. and Goddard, M.E. 2009. Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges. J. Dairy Sci., 92: 433–443.
Legarra, A., Aguilar, I. and Misztal, I. 2009. A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. J. Dairy Sci., 92: 4656–4663.
Lourenco, D.A.L., Fragomeni, B.O., Tsuruta, S., Aguilar, I., Zumbach, B., Hawken, R.J., Legarra, A. and Misztal, I. 2015. Accuracy of estimated breeding values with genomic information on males, females, or both: An example on broiler chicken. Genet. Sel. Evol., 47: 1–9.
Mehrabani-Yeganeh, H., Gibson, J.P. and Schaeffer, L.R. 1999. Using recent versus complete pedigree data in genetic evaluation of a closed nucleus broiler line. Poult. Sci., 78: 937–941.
Meuwissen, T.H.E., Hayes, B.J. and Goddard, M.E. 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics., 157: 1819–1829.
Misztal, I., Legarra, A. and Aguilar, I. 2009. Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information. J. Dairy Sci., 92: 4648–4655.
Muir, W.M. 2007. Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters. J. Anim. Breed. Genet., 124: 342–355.
Preisinger, R. 2012. Genome-wide selection in poultry. Anim. Prod. Sci., 52: 121–125.
Pryce, J.E., Hayes, B.J. and Goddard, M.E. 2012. Novel strategies to minimize progeny inbreeding while maximizing genetic gain using genomic information. J. Dairy Sci., 95: 377–388.
Schaeffer, L.R. 2006. Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle. J. Anim. Breed. Genet., 123: 218–223.
VanRaden, P.M. 2008. Efficient Methods to Compute Genomic Predictions. J. Dairy Sci., 91: 4414–4423.
Vitezica, Z.G., Aguilar, I., Misztal, I. and Legarra, A. 2011. Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection. Genet. Res. (Camb)., 93: 357–366.
Wolc, A., Kranis, A., Arango, J., Settar, P., Fulton, J.E., O’Sullivan, N.P., Avendano, A., Watson, K.A., Hickey, J.M., de los Campos, G., Fernando, R.L., Garrick, D.J. and Dekkers, J.C.M. 2016. Implementation of genomic selection in the poultry industry. Animal. Front., 6: 23.
Wolc, A., Zhao, H.H., Arango, J., Settar, P., Fulton, J.E., O’Sullivan, N.P., Preisinger, R., Stricker, C., Habier, D., Fernando, R.L., Garrick, D.J., Lamont, S.J. and Dekkers, J.C.M. 2015. Response and inbreeding from a genomic selection experiment in layer chickens. Genet. Sel. Evol., 47: 1–12.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 22, Issue 4
May and June 2020
Pages 977-987