2007
Paul VanRadenPaul VanRaden11, Curt Van Tassell, Curt Van Tassell22, George Wiggans, George Wiggans11, Tad , Tad SonstegardSonstegard22, Jeff O’Connell, Jeff O’Connell11, Bob Schnabel, Bob Schnabel33, Jerry Taylor, Jerry Taylor33, and , and Flavio SchenkelFlavio Schenkel44, , 1Animal Improvement Programs Lab and 2Bovine Functional Genomics Lab, USDA Agricultural Research Service, Beltsville, MD, USA, 3U. Missouri, Columbia, 4U. Guelph, ON, [email protected]
2008
Reliability of Genomic Predictions Reliability of Genomic Predictions for North American Dairy Bullsfor North American Dairy Bulls
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (2) Paul VanRaden200
8
Sequencing and GenotypingSequencing and Genotyping
Cattle genome sequenced in 2004• 30 chromosome pairs (including X,Y)• 3 billion letters from each parent
Illumina BovineSNP50 BeadChip• 58,000 genetic markers in 2007• 38,416 used in genomic predictions• Current cost < $250 per animal
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (3) Paul VanRaden200
8
Experimental DesignExperimental Design
Compute genomic evaluations and parent averages from 2003 data• 3576 older Holstein bulls born 1952-1998
Compare ability to predict daughter deviations in 2008 data• 1759 younger bulls born 1999-2002
Test results for 27 traits: 5 yield, 5 health, 16 conformation, and Net Merit
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (4) Paul VanRaden200
8
Genotyped Animals (n=6005)Genotyped Animals (n=6005)As of April 2008As of April 2008
0
200
400
600
800
100019
50
1970
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
Year of Birth
Nu
mb
er o
f A
nim
als
Predictor
Predictee
Young
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (5) Paul VanRaden200
8
Genomic MethodsGenomic Methods
Direct genomic evaluation• Inversion for linear prediction, REL• Iteration for nonlinear prediction
Combined genomic evaluation• 3 x 3 selection index combining
direct genomic PTA, traditional PA or PTA, and subset PA or PTA by REL
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (6) Paul VanRaden200
8
Marker Effects for Net MeritMarker Effects for Net Merit
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (7) Paul VanRaden200
8
Significance Tests for Net MeritSignificance Tests for Net Merit
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (8) Paul VanRaden200
8
Major Gene on Chromosome 18Major Gene on Chromosome 18Net Merit, Productive Life, Calving Ease, Stature, Strength, Rump WidthNet Merit, Productive Life, Calving Ease, Stature, Strength, Rump Width
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (9) Paul VanRaden200
8
Marker Effects for MilkMarker Effects for Milk
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (10) Paul VanRaden200
8
Marker Effects for Final ScoreMarker Effects for Final Score
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (11) Paul VanRaden200
8
Linear and Nonlinear PredictionsLinear and Nonlinear Predictions
Linear model• Infinitesimal alleles model in which
all loci have non-zero effects
Nonlinear models• Model A: infinitesimal alleles with a
heavy-tailed prior• Model B: finite locus model with
normally-distributed marker effects• Model AB: finite locus model with a
heavy-tailed prior
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (12) Paul VanRaden200
8
Nonlinear and Linear Regressions Nonlinear and Linear Regressions for marker allele effectsfor marker allele effects
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (13) Paul VanRaden200
8
RR22 for linear and nonlinear predictions for linear and nonlinear predictions
ModelTrait Linear A B ABNet Merit 28.2 28.4 27.6 27.6Milk 47.2 48.5 46.7 47.3Fat 41.8 44.2 41.5 43.6Protein 47.5 47.0 46.8 46.6Fat % 55.3 63.3 57.5 63.9Protein % 51.4 57.7 51.4 56.6Longevity 25.6 27.4 25.4 26.4Somatic cell 37.3 38.3 37.3 37.6Days open 29.5 29.0 29.4 29.2
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (14) Paul VanRaden200
8
RR22 vs. Reliability vs. Reliability
Adjust the observed genomic R2
• Daughter deviations contain error– Divide by REL of 2008 deviationsDivide by REL of 2008 deviations
• Parents are selected– Add difference of PA RAdd difference of PA R22 from expected from expected
Adjust theoretical genomic REL• Genotypes contain a few errors • QTLs are located between SNPs
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (15) Paul VanRaden200
8
RR22 and Reliabilities for Traditional and and Reliabilities for Traditional and Genomic PredictionsGenomic Predictions
Squared corr (x100)
Reliability
Traditional Genomic Genomic
Trait PA Genomic PA Realized Gain
Net Merit 11 28 30 53 23
Milk 28 49 35 58 23
Fat 15 44 35 68 33
Protein 27 47 35 57 22
Fat % 25 63 35 78 43
Protein % 28 58 35 69 34
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (16) Paul VanRaden200
8
RR22 and Reliabilities for Traditional and and Reliabilities for Traditional and Genomic PredictionsGenomic Predictions
Squared corr (x100)
Reliability
Traditional Genomic Genomic
Trait PA Genomic PA Realized Gain
Longevity 17 27 27 45 18SCS 23 38 30 51 21Fertility 20 29 25 41 16S.calf ease 27 29 28 31 3D.calf ease 14 22 25 40 15Final score 23 36 24 42 18
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (17) Paul VanRaden200
8
Reliability Gains for Proven BullsReliability Gains for Proven Bulls
Bulls included in test had:• >10 daughters in August 2003• >10% increase in reliability by 2008• Numbers of bulls in test ranged from
104 to 735 across traits• Predicted the change in evaluation
Significant increase in R2 (P < .001) for 26 of 27 traits
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (18) Paul VanRaden200
8
Net Merit by Chromosome for O ManNet Merit by Chromosome for O ManTop bull for Net MeritTop bull for Net Merit
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
X 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Chromosome
NM
$
NM$
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (19) Paul VanRaden200
8
SNPs on X ChromosomeSNPs on X Chromosome
Each animal has two evaluations:• Expected genetic merit of daughters• Expected genetic merit of sons• Difference is sum of effects on X• SD = .1 σG, smaller than expected
Correlation with sire’s daughter vs. son PTA difference was significant (P<.0001), regression close to 1.0
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (20) Paul VanRaden200
8
X, X, YY, , Pseudo-autosomalPseudo-autosomal SNPs SNPs
487 SNPs
35 SNPs
0 SNPs
35 SNPs
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (21) Paul VanRaden200
8
Clones and Identical TwinsClones and Identical Twins21HO2121, 21HO2125, 21HO2100, CAN6139300, CAN613930321HO2121, 21HO2125, 21HO2100, CAN6139300, CAN6139303
Traditional Genomic
Bull Dtrs NM$ REL NM$ REL
Triton - ETN 98 -363 82 -371 91
Triad - ETN 26 -306 68 -370 91
Trey - ETN 108 -395 83 -371 91
Loyalty 108 -185 78 -196 87
Lauriet 83 -203 76 -196 87
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (22) Paul VanRaden200
8
Value of Genotyping More Value of Genotyping More SNPSNP9,604 (10K), 19,208 (20K), and 38,416 (40K) SNP9,604 (10K), 19,208 (20K), and 38,416 (40K) SNP
REL of PA
Genomic REL
Trait 10K 20K 40K
Net Merit $ 30 48 50 53
Milk yield 35 53 56 58
Fat yield 35 64 66 68
Protein yield 35 54 56 57
Productive Life 27 38 41 45
SCS (mastitis) 30 45 47 51
Dtr Preg Rate 25 37 39 41
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (23) Paul VanRaden200
8
Value of Genotyping More BullsValue of Genotyping More Bulls
Bulls R2 for Net Merit
Predictor Predictee PA Genomic Gain
1151 251 8 12 4
2130 261 8 17 9
2609 510 8 21 13
3576 1759 11 28 17
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (24) Paul VanRaden200
8
SimulatedSimulated Results ResultsWorld Holstein PopulationWorld Holstein Population
15,197 older and 5,987 younger bulls in Interbull file
40,000 SNPs and 10,000 QTLs
Provided timing, memory test
Reliability vs parent average REL• REL = corr2 (EBV, true BV) • 80% vs 34% expected for young bulls• 72% vs 30% observed in simulation
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (25) Paul VanRaden200
8
Brown Swiss ResultsBrown Swiss Results
Nearly all proven bulls genotyped• Data from 225 bulls born before 1999 • Predict 118 bulls born during or after 1999
Gains in young bull reliability • Expected to be 1% to 3%• Actual gains were about 2% for yield• Little or no gain for other traits
Cooperation with Europe is needed
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (26) Paul VanRaden200
8
Jersey GenotypesJersey Genotypes
Same experimental design• DNA available for 766 bulls • Total of 594 genotyped as of June• Results not available yet
Gains in reliability expected to be proportional to number of bulls genotyped
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (27) Paul VanRaden200
8
Expected vs Observed ReliabilityExpected vs Observed ReliabilityHolsteinsHolsteins
Reliability for predictee bulls • Traditional PA: 27% average across traits• Genomic: 63% expected vs. 50% observed• Observed range 78% (fat pct) to 31% (SCE)• PTA regressions .8 to .9 of expected
Multiply genomic daughter equivalents by .7 to make expected closer to observed • For example, 16 * .7 = 11• Include polygenic effect, less than 5%
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (28) Paul VanRaden200
8
Genetic ProgressGenetic ProgressHolsteinsHolsteins
Assume 60% REL for net merit• Sires mostly 2 instead of 6 years old• Dams of sons mostly heifers with 60% REL
instead of cows with phenotype and genotype (66% REL)
Progress could increase by >50%• 0.37 vs. 0.23 genetic SD per year• Reduce generation interval more than
accuracy
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (29) Paul VanRaden200
8
Genetic Evaluation AdvancesGenetic Evaluation Advancesand increases in genetic progressand increases in genetic progress
Year Advance % Gain
1935 Daughter-dam comparison 100
1962 Herdmate comparison 50
1973 Records in progress 10
1974 Modified cont. comparison 5
1977 Protein evaluated 4
1989 Animal model 4
1994 Net merit, PL, and SCS 50
2008 Genomic selection >50
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (30) Paul VanRaden200
8
How Related are Relatives?How Related are Relatives?CorrectionCorrection
Example: Full sibs • Share 50% ± 5% of their DNA on
average (in cattle)• SD 3.5% reported previously was low• For any diploid species, general
formula is 50% ± 50% / [2(C + L)].5, where C is number of chromosomes and L is genome length in Morgans
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (31) Paul VanRaden200
8
ConclusionsConclusions
Genomic predictions significantly better than parent average (P < .0001) for all 26 traits tested
Gains in reliability equivalent on average to 11 daughters with records • Analysis used 3576 historical bulls • April data included 5285 proven bulls
High REL requires many genotypes
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (32) Paul VanRaden200
8
AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments
Genotyping and DNA extraction:• BFGL, U. Missouri, U. Alberta, GeneSeek, GIFV, and
Illumina
Computing: • AIPL staff (Mel Tooker, Leigh Walton, etc.)
Funding: • National Research Initiative grants
– 2006-35205-16888, 2006-35205-167012006-35205-16888, 2006-35205-16701• Agriculture Research Service• Contributors to Cooperative Dairy DNA Repository
(CDDR)
FASS annual meeting, July 2008 (33) Paul VanRaden200
8
CDDR ContributorsCDDR Contributors
National Association of Animal Breeders (NAAB, Columbia, MO)• ABS Global (DeForest, WI)• Accelerated Genetics (Baraboo, WI)• Alta (Balzac, AB)• Genex (Shawano, WI)• New Generation Genetics (Fort Atkinson, WI)• Select Sires (Plain City, OH)• Semex Alliance (Guelph, ON)• Taurus-Service (Mehoopany, PA)