Md Sharif-Islam, Julius H. J. van der Werf, Mark Henryon, Thinh Tuan Chu, Benjamin J. Wood, Susanne Hermesch
{"title":"对活体和死体动物进行基因分型,提高育种项目中猪断奶后的存活率","authors":"Md Sharif-Islam, Julius H. J. van der Werf, Mark Henryon, Thinh Tuan Chu, Benjamin J. Wood, Susanne Hermesch","doi":"10.1186/s12711-024-00932-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this study, we tested whether genotyping both live and dead animals (GSD) realises more genetic gain for post-weaning survival (PWS) in pigs compared to genotyping only live animals (GOS). Stochastic simulation was used to estimate the rate of genetic gain realised by GSD and GOS at a 0.01 rate of pedigree-based inbreeding in three breeding schemes, which differed in PWS (95%, 90% and 50%) and litter size (6 and 10). Pedigree-based selection was conducted as a point of reference. Variance components were estimated and then estimated breeding values (EBV) were obtained in each breeding scheme using a linear or a threshold model. Selection was for a single trait, i.e. PWS with a heritability of 0.02 on the observed scale. The trait was simulated on the underlying scale and was recorded as binary (0/1). Selection candidates were genotyped and phenotyped before selection, with only live candidates eligible for selection. Genotyping strategies differed in the proportion of live and dead animals genotyped, but the phenotypes of all animals were used for predicting EBV of the selection candidates. Based on a 0.01 rate of pedigree-based inbreeding, GSD realised 14 to 33% more genetic gain than GOS for all breeding schemes depending on PWS and litter size. GSD increased the prediction accuracy of EBV for PWS by at least 14% compared to GOS. The use of a linear versus a threshold model did not have an impact on genetic gain for PWS regardless of the genotyping strategy and the bias of the EBV did not differ significantly among genotyping strategies. Genotyping both dead and live animals was more informative than genotyping only live animals to predict the EBV for PWS of selection candidates, but with marginal increases in genetic gain when the proportion of dead animals genotyped was 60% or greater. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to use genomic information on both live and more than 20% dead animals to compute EBV for the genetic improvement of PWS under the assumption that dead animals reflect increased liability on the underlying scale.","PeriodicalId":55120,"journal":{"name":"Genetics Selection Evolution","volume":"63 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Genotyping both live and dead animals to improve post-weaning survival of pigs in breeding programs\",\"authors\":\"Md Sharif-Islam, Julius H. J. van der Werf, Mark Henryon, Thinh Tuan Chu, Benjamin J. Wood, Susanne Hermesch\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12711-024-00932-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this study, we tested whether genotyping both live and dead animals (GSD) realises more genetic gain for post-weaning survival (PWS) in pigs compared to genotyping only live animals (GOS). Stochastic simulation was used to estimate the rate of genetic gain realised by GSD and GOS at a 0.01 rate of pedigree-based inbreeding in three breeding schemes, which differed in PWS (95%, 90% and 50%) and litter size (6 and 10). Pedigree-based selection was conducted as a point of reference. Variance components were estimated and then estimated breeding values (EBV) were obtained in each breeding scheme using a linear or a threshold model. Selection was for a single trait, i.e. PWS with a heritability of 0.02 on the observed scale. The trait was simulated on the underlying scale and was recorded as binary (0/1). Selection candidates were genotyped and phenotyped before selection, with only live candidates eligible for selection. Genotyping strategies differed in the proportion of live and dead animals genotyped, but the phenotypes of all animals were used for predicting EBV of the selection candidates. Based on a 0.01 rate of pedigree-based inbreeding, GSD realised 14 to 33% more genetic gain than GOS for all breeding schemes depending on PWS and litter size. GSD increased the prediction accuracy of EBV for PWS by at least 14% compared to GOS. The use of a linear versus a threshold model did not have an impact on genetic gain for PWS regardless of the genotyping strategy and the bias of the EBV did not differ significantly among genotyping strategies. Genotyping both dead and live animals was more informative than genotyping only live animals to predict the EBV for PWS of selection candidates, but with marginal increases in genetic gain when the proportion of dead animals genotyped was 60% or greater. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to use genomic information on both live and more than 20% dead animals to compute EBV for the genetic improvement of PWS under the assumption that dead animals reflect increased liability on the underlying scale.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Genetics Selection Evolution\",\"volume\":\"63 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Genetics Selection Evolution\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-024-00932-4\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetics Selection Evolution","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12711-024-00932-4","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Genotyping both live and dead animals to improve post-weaning survival of pigs in breeding programs
In this study, we tested whether genotyping both live and dead animals (GSD) realises more genetic gain for post-weaning survival (PWS) in pigs compared to genotyping only live animals (GOS). Stochastic simulation was used to estimate the rate of genetic gain realised by GSD and GOS at a 0.01 rate of pedigree-based inbreeding in three breeding schemes, which differed in PWS (95%, 90% and 50%) and litter size (6 and 10). Pedigree-based selection was conducted as a point of reference. Variance components were estimated and then estimated breeding values (EBV) were obtained in each breeding scheme using a linear or a threshold model. Selection was for a single trait, i.e. PWS with a heritability of 0.02 on the observed scale. The trait was simulated on the underlying scale and was recorded as binary (0/1). Selection candidates were genotyped and phenotyped before selection, with only live candidates eligible for selection. Genotyping strategies differed in the proportion of live and dead animals genotyped, but the phenotypes of all animals were used for predicting EBV of the selection candidates. Based on a 0.01 rate of pedigree-based inbreeding, GSD realised 14 to 33% more genetic gain than GOS for all breeding schemes depending on PWS and litter size. GSD increased the prediction accuracy of EBV for PWS by at least 14% compared to GOS. The use of a linear versus a threshold model did not have an impact on genetic gain for PWS regardless of the genotyping strategy and the bias of the EBV did not differ significantly among genotyping strategies. Genotyping both dead and live animals was more informative than genotyping only live animals to predict the EBV for PWS of selection candidates, but with marginal increases in genetic gain when the proportion of dead animals genotyped was 60% or greater. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to use genomic information on both live and more than 20% dead animals to compute EBV for the genetic improvement of PWS under the assumption that dead animals reflect increased liability on the underlying scale.
期刊介绍:
Genetics Selection Evolution invites basic, applied and methodological content that will aid the current understanding and the utilization of genetic variability in domestic animal species. Although the focus is on domestic animal species, research on other species is invited if it contributes to the understanding of the use of genetic variability in domestic animals. Genetics Selection Evolution publishes results from all levels of study, from the gene to the quantitative trait, from the individual to the population, the breed or the species. Contributions concerning both the biological approach, from molecular genetics to quantitative genetics, as well as the mathematical approach, from population genetics to statistics, are welcome. Specific areas of interest include but are not limited to: gene and QTL identification, mapping and characterization, analysis of new phenotypes, high-throughput SNP data analysis, functional genomics, cytogenetics, genetic diversity of populations and breeds, genetic evaluation, applied and experimental selection, genomic selection, selection efficiency, and statistical methodology for the genetic analysis of phenotypes with quantitative and mixed inheritance.