Multibreed genomic evaluation for production traits of dairy cattle in the United States using single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor.

Official multibreed genomic evaluations for dairy cattle in the United States are based on multibreed BLUP evaluation followed by single-breed estimation of SNP effects. Single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) allows the straight computation of genomic (G)EBV in a multibreed context. This work aimed to develop ssGBLUP multibreed genomic predictions for US dairy cattle using the algorithm for proven and young (APY) to compute the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix. Only purebred Ayrshire (AY), Brown Swiss (BS), Guernsey (GU), Holstein (HO), and Jersey (JE) animals were considered. A 3-trait model with milk (MY), fat (FY), and protein (PY) yields was applied using about 45 million phenotypes recorded from January 2000 to June 2020. The whole data set included about 29.5 million animals, of which almost 4 million were genotyped. All the effects in the model were breed specific, and breed was also considered as fixed unknown parent groups. Evaluations were done for (1) each single breed separately (single); (2) HO and JE together (HO_JE); (3) AY, BS, and GU together (AY_BS_GU); (4) all the 5 breeds together (5_BREEDS). Initially, 15k core animals were used in APY for AY_BS_GU and 5_BREEDS, but larger core sets with more animals from the least represented breeds were also tested. The HO_JE evaluation had a fixed set of 30k core animals, with an equal representation of the 2 breeds, whereas HO and JE single-breed analysis involved 15k core animals. Validation for cows was based on correlations between adjusted phenotypes and (G)EBV, whereas for bulls on the regression of daughter yield deviations on (G)EBV. Because breed was correctly considered in the model, BLUP results for single and multibreed analyses were the same. Under ssGBLUP, predictability and reliability for AY, BS, and GU were on average 7% and 2% lower in 5_BREEDS compared with single-breed evaluations, respectively. However, validation parameters for these 3 breeds became better than in the single-breed evaluations when 45k animals were included in the core set for 5_BREEDS. Evaluations for Holsteins were more stable across scenarios because of the greatest number of genotyped animals and amount of data. Combining AY, BS, and GU into one evaluation resulted in predictions similar to the ones from single breed, especially when using about 30k core animals in APY. The results showed that single-step large-scale multibreed evaluations are computationally feasible, but fine tuning is needed to avoid a reduction in reliability when numerically dominant breeds are combined. Having evaluations for AY, BS, and GU separated from HO and JE may reduce inflation of GEBV for the first 3 breeds.

Genomic predictions for yield traits in US Holsteins with unknown parent groups.

The objective of this study was to assess the reliability and bias of estimated breeding values (EBV) from traditional BLUP with unknown parent groups (UPG), genomic EBV (GEBV) from single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) with UPG for the pedigree relationship matrix (A) only (SS_UPG), and GEBV from ssGBLUP with UPG for both A and the relationship matrix among genotyped animals (A22; SS_UPG2) using 6 large phenotype-pedigree truncated Holstein data sets. The complete data included 80 million records for milk, fat, and protein yields from 31 million cows recorded since 1980. Phenotype-pedigree truncation scenarios included truncation of phenotypes for cows recorded before 1990 and 2000 combined with truncation of pedigree information after 2 or 3 ancestral generations. A total of 861,525 genotyped bulls with progeny and cows with phenotypic records were used in the analyses. Reliability and bias (inflation/deflation) of GEBV were obtained for 2,710 bulls based on deregressed proofs, and on 381,779 cows born after 2014 based on predictivity (adjusted cow phenotypes). The BLUP reliabilities for young bulls varied from 0.29 to 0.30 across traits and were unaffected by data truncation and number of generations in the pedigree. Reliabilities ranged from 0.54 to 0.69 for SS_UPG and were slightly affected by phenotype-pedigree truncation. Reliabilities ranged from 0.69 to 0.73 for SS_UPG2 and were unaffected by phenotype-pedigree truncation. The regression coefficient of bull deregressed proofs on (G)EBV (i.e., GEBV and EBV) ranged from 0.86 to 0.90 for BLUP, from 0.77 to 0.94 for SS_UPG, and was 1.00 ± 0.03 for SS_UPG2. Cow predictivity ranged from 0.22 to 0.28 for BLUP, 0.48 to 0.51 for SS_UPG, and 0.51 to 0.54 for SS_UPG2. The highest cow predictivities for BLUP were obtained with the most extreme truncation, whereas for SS_UPG2, cow predictivities were also unaffected by phenotype-pedigree truncations. The regression coefficient of cow predictivities on (G)EBV was 1.02 ± 0.02 for SS_UPG2 with the most extreme truncation, which indicated the least biased predictions. Computations with the complete data set took 17 h with BLUP, 58 h with SS_UPG, and 23 h with SS_UPG2. The same computations with the most extreme phenotype-pedigree truncation took 7, 36, and 15 h, respectively. The SS_UPG2 converged in fewer rounds than BLUP, whereas SS_UPG took up to twice as many rounds. Thus, the ssGBLUP with UPG assigned to both A and A22 provided accurate and unbiased evaluations, regardless of phenotype-pedigree truncation scenario. Old phenotypes (before 2000 in this data set) did not affect the reliability of predictions for young selection candidates, especially in SS_UPG2.

Controlling bias in genomic breeding values for young genotyped bulls.

The objectives of this study were to investigate bias in genomic predictions for dairy cattle and to find a practical approach to reduce the bias. The simulated data included phenotypes, pedigrees, and genotypes, mimicking a dairy cattle population (i.e., cows with phenotypes and bulls with no phenotypes) and assuming selection by breeding values or no selection. With the simulated data, genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) were calculated with a single-step genomic BLUP and compared with true breeding values. Phenotypes and genotypes were simulated in 10 generations and in the last 4 generations, respectively. Phenotypes in the last generation were removed to predict breeding values for those individuals using only genomic and pedigree information. Complete pedigrees and incomplete pedigrees with 50% missing dams were created to construct the pedigree-based relationship matrix with and without inbreeding. With missing dams, unknown parent groups (UPG) were assigned in relationship matrices. Regression coefficients (b1) and coefficients of determination (R2) of true breeding values on (G)EBV were calculated to investigate inflation and accuracy in GEBV for genotyped animals, respectively. In addition to the simulation study, 18 linear type traits of US Holsteins were examined. For the 18 type traits, b1 and R2 of GEBV with full data sets on GEBV with partial data sets for young genotyped bulls were calculated. The results from the simulation study indicated inflation in GEBV for genotyped males that were evaluated with only pedigree and genomic information under BLUP selection. However, when UPG for only pedigree-based relationships were included, the inflation was reduced, accuracy was highest, and genetic trends had no bias. For the linear type traits, when UPG for only pedigree-based relationships were included, the results were generally in agreement with those from the simulation study, implying less bias in genetic trends. However, when including no UPG, UPG in pedigree-based relationships, or UPG in genomic relationships, inflation and accuracy in GEBV were similar. The results from the simulation and type traits suggest that UPG must be defined accurately to be estimable and inbreeding should be included in pedigree-based relationships. In dairy cattle, known pedigree information with inbreeding and estimable UPG plays an important role in improving compatibility between pedigree-based and genomic relationship matrices, resulting in more reliable genomic predictions.

Modeling missing pedigree in single-step genomic BLUP.

The objective was to compare methods of modeling missing pedigree in single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP). Options for modeling missing pedigree included ignoring the missing pedigree, unknown parent groups (UPG) based on A (the numerator relationship matrix) or H (the unified pedigree and genomic relationship matrix), and metafounders. The assumptions for the distribution of estimated breeding values changed with the different models. We simulated data with heritabilities of 0.3 and 0.1 for dairy cattle populations that had more missing pedigrees for animals of lesser genetic merit. Predictions for the youngest generation and UPG solutions were compared with the true values for validation. For both traits, ssGBLUP with metafounders provided accurate and unbiased predictions for young animals while also appropriately accounting for genetic trend. Accuracy was least and bias was greatest for ssGBLUP with UPG for H for the trait with heritability of 0.3 and with UPG for A for the trait with heritability of 0.1. For the trait with heritability of 0.1 and UPG for H, the UPG accuracy (SD) was -0.49 (0.12), suggesting poor estimates of genetic trend despite having little bias for validations on young, genotyped animals. Problems with UPG estimates were likely caused by the lesser amount of information available for the lower heritability trait. Hence, UPG need to be defined differently based on the trait and amount of information. More research is needed to investigate accounting for UPG in A22 to better account for missing pedigrees for genotyped animals.

Assigning unknown parent groups to reduce bias in genomic evaluations of final score in US Holsteins.

Assigning unknown parent groups (UPG) in mixed-model equations using single-step genomic BLUP was investigated to reduce bias and to increase accuracy in genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). The original UPG were defined based on the animal's birth year and the sex of the animal's unknown parents. Combining the last 2 UPG for the animals' birth years and separating the UPG for US and non-US Holsteins were considered in the redefinition. A full data set in the 2011 national genetic evaluation of final score in US Holsteins was used to calculate estimated breeding values (EBV) for validation, and a subset of the 2011 data, which excluded phenotypes recorded after 2007, was used to calculate GEBV for all animals, including 34,500 genotyped bulls. The EBV and GEBV in 2007 were compared with EBV in the 2011 full data. The last group effects for unknown sires and dams were overestimated with the GEBV model using the reduced 2007 data. The genetic trends from EBV in 2011 and GEBV in 2007 with the original UPG in the last few years demonstrated inflation, whereas GEBV with the redefined UPG by combining the last 2 groups showed deflation. On the other hand, the redefined UPG by separating for US and non-US Holsteins reduced the bias in GEBV. Regression coefficients smaller than unity for GEBV for young genotyped bulls with no daughters in 2007 on progeny deviations in 2011 also indicated inflation. The redefining of UPG reduced bias and slightly increased accuracy in GEBV for both US and non-US genotyped bulls. Rank correlations between GEBV in 2007 and in 2011 with the redefined UPG were higher than those with no UPG and the original UPG, especially for non-US bulls. Redefining of UPG in genomic evaluation could improve reliability of GEBV and provide correct genetic trends.

Comparison of models for missing pedigree in single-step genomic prediction.

Pedigree information is often missing for some animals in a breeding program. Unknown-parent groups (UPGs) are assigned to the missing parents to avoid biased genetic evaluations. Although the use of UPGs is well established for the pedigree model, it is unclear how UPGs are integrated into the inverse of the unified relationship matrix (H-inverse) required for single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction. A generalization of the UPG model is the metafounder (MF) model. The objectives of this study were to derive 3 H-inverses and to compare genetic trends among models with UPG and MF H-inverses using a simulated purebred population. All inverses were derived using the joint density function of the random breeding values and genetic groups. The breeding values of genotyped animals (u2) were assumed to be adjusted for UPG effects (g) using matrix Q2 as u2∗=u2+Q2g before incorporating genomic information. The Quaas-Pollak-transformed (QP) H-inverse was derived using a joint density function of u2∗ and g updated with genomic information and assuming nonzero cov(u2∗,g'). The modified QP (altered) H-inverse also assumes that the genomic information updates u2∗ and g, but cov(u2∗,g')=0. The UPG-encapsulated (EUPG) H-inverse assumed genomic information updates the distribution of u2∗. The EUPG H-inverse had the same structure as the MF H-inverse. Fifty percent of the genotyped females in the simulation had a missing dam, and missing parents were replaced with UPGs by generation. The simulation study indicated that u2∗ and g in models using the QP and altered H-inverses may be inseparable leading to potential biases in genetic trends. Models using the EUPG and MF H-inverses showed no genetic trend biases. These 2 H-inverses yielded the same genomic EBV (GEBV). The predictive ability and inflation of GEBVs from young genotyped animals were nearly identical among models using the QP, altered, EUPG, and MF H-inverses. Although the choice of H-inverse in real applications with enough data may not result in biased genetic trends, the EUPG and MF H-inverses are to be preferred because of theoretical justification and possibility to reduce biases.

Applying the Metafounders Approach for Genomic Evaluation in a Multibreed Beef Cattle Population.

Pedigree information is incomplete by nature and commonly not well-established because many of the genetic ties are not known a priori or can be wrong. The genomic era brought new opportunities to assess relationships between individuals. However, when pedigree and genomic information are used simultaneously, which is the case of single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP), defining the genetic base is still a challenge. One alternative to overcome this challenge is to use metafounders, which are pseudo-individuals that describe the genetic relationship between the base population individuals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of metafounders on the estimation of breeding values for tick resistance under ssGBLUP for a multibreed population composed by Hereford, Braford, and Zebu animals. Three different scenarios were studied: pedigree-based model (BLUP), ssGBLUP, and ssGBLUP with metafounders (ssGBLUPm). In ssGBLUPm, a total of four different metafounders based on breed of origin (i.e., Hereford, Braford, Zebu, and unknown) were included for the animals with missing parents. The relationship coefficient between metafounders was in average 0.54 (ranging from 0.34 to 0.96) suggesting an overlap between ancestor populations. The estimates of metafounder relationships indicate that Hereford and Zebu breeds have a possible common ancestral relationship. Inbreeding coefficients calculated following the metafounder approach had less negative values, suggesting that ancestral populations were large enough and that gametes inherited from the historical population were not identical. Variance components were estimated based on ssGBLUPm, ssGBLUP, and BLUP, but the values from ssGBLUPm were scaled to provide a fair comparison with estimates from the other two models. In general, additive, residual, and phenotypic variance components in the Hereford population were smaller than in Braford across different models. The addition of genomic information increased heritability for Hereford, possibly because of improved genetic relationships. As expected, genomic models had greater predictive ability, with an additional gain for ssGBLUPm over ssGBLUP. The increase in predictive ability was greater for Herefords. Our results show the potential of using metafounders to increase accuracy of GEBV, and therefore, the rate of genetic gain in beef cattle populations with partial levels of missing pedigree information.