Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XIV common dataset. I: genomic selection

Thumbnail Image
Date
2011-01-01
Authors
Pszczola, Marcin
Strabel, Tomasz
Mucha, Sebastian
Szydlowski, Maciej
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Authors
Person
Wolc, Anna
Affiliate Assistant Professor
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Organizational Unit
Animal Science

The Department of Animal Science originally concerned itself with teaching the selection, breeding, feeding and care of livestock. Today it continues this study of the symbiotic relationship between animals and humans, with practical focuses on agribusiness, science, and animal management.

History
The Department of Animal Husbandry was established in 1898. The name of the department was changed to the Department of Animal Science in 1962. The Department of Poultry Science was merged into the department in 1971.

Historical Names

Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Department
Abstract

Background: For the XIV QTLMAS workshop, a dataset for traits with complex genetic architecture has been simulated and released for analyses by participants. One of the tasks was to estimate direct genomic values for individuals without phenotypes. The aim of this paper was to compare results of different approaches used by the participants to calculate direct genomic values for quantitative trait (QT) and binary trait (BT).

Results: Participants applied 26 approaches for QT and 15 approaches for BT. Accuracy for QT was between 0.26 and 0.89 for males and between 0.31 and 0.89 for females, and for BT ranged from 0.27 to 0.85. For QT, percentage of lost response to selection varied from 8% to 83%, whereas for BT the loss was between 15% and 71%.

Conclusions: Bayesian model averaging methods predicted breeding values slightly better than GBLUP in a simulated data set. The methods utilizing genomic information performed better than traditional pedigree based BLUP analyses. Bivariate analyses was slightly advantageous over single trait for the same method. None of the methods estimated the non-additivity of QTL affecting the QT, which may be one of the constrains in accuracy observed in real data.

Comments

This proceeding is published as Pszczola, M., Strabel, T., Wolc, A. et al. Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XIV common dataset. I: genomic selection. BMC Proc 5, S1 (2011). doi: 10.1186/1753-6561-5-S3-S1.

Description
Keywords
Citation
DOI
Copyright
Sat Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2011