4.4 Article

Invited review: Genomic evaluation of cattle in a multi-breed context

期刊

LIVESTOCK SCIENCE
卷 166, 期 -, 页码 101-110

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.livsci.2014.05.008

关键词

Multi-breed; Genomic Prediction; Linkage disequilibrium

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In order to obtain accurate genomic breeding values a large number of reference animals with both phenotype and genotype data are needed. This poses a challenge for breeds with small reference populations. One option to overcome this obstacle is to use a multibreed reference population. However, combining populations across breeds is not straightforward due to differences in linkage disequilibrium structure and weak relationships between breeds. This study offers a review of the available literature on the use of reference populations compiled from different cattle breeds. Results show that the effect of multi-breed reference populations on the accuracy of genomic prediction is highly affected by the genetic distance between breeds. When combining populations of the same breeds from different countries, large increases in accuracy are seen, whereas for admixed populations with some exchange of sires, substantial but smaller gains are found. Little or no benefit is found when combining distantly related breeds such as Holstein and Jersey and using the widely used genomic BLUP model. By using more sophisticated Bayesian variable selection models that put more focus on genomic markers in strong linkage disequilibrium with causative variants in combination with denser markers sets or functional subsets of markers, it is however possible to utilize information across distantly related breeds to increase the accuracy of genomic prediction. The further development of multi-breed genomic prediction models offers not only increases in the accuracy of genomic breeding values for small breeds, but will also give a stronger persistence of the accuracy over generations within larger breeds. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据