Genomic predictions based on haplotypes fitted as pseudo-SNP for milk production and udder type traits and SCS in French dairy goats
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The development of statistical methods aiming to improve the accuracy of genomic predictions is of utmost value for dairy goat breeding programs. In this context, the use of haplotypes, instead of individual SNP, could improve the accuracy of genomic predictions by better capturing the effect of causal variants, instead of relying solely on linkage disequilibrium with individual SNP. Haplotypes can be included in genomic evaluation models in various ways, such as fitting them as pseudo-SNP (i.e., haplotypes converted into biallelic SNP format). This can be easily incorporated in the software already available for single-step genomic predictions (ssGBLUP). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the predictive performances of ssGBLUP and weighted ssGBLUP (WssGBLUP) based on individual SNP or on haplotypes fitted as pseudo-SNP. Performance was compared in terms of accuracy, bias, and weights for SNP versus pseudo-SNP. Genomic predictions were performed on 5 milk production traits, 5 udder type traits, and somatic cell score (SCS). The training population was formed by 307 Alpine and 247 Saanen progeny-tested bucks, genotyped using the Illumina Goat SNP50 BeadChip (Illumina, San Diego, CA). The validation population included 205 Alpine and 146 Saanen young bucks. The accuracy of genomic predictions was evaluated in the validation population as the Pearson correlation between genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV), predicted based on various methods, and daughter deviation (DD) based on the official genetic evaluation of January 2016. Haplotype-based models were shown to improve the performance of genomic predictions for some traits. Gains in accuracy of up to +19% (0.310 to 0.368 for fat yield) in Alpine and up to +3% (0.361 to 0.373 for udder shape) in Saanen were observed with ssGBLUP. The ssGBLUP accuracies averaged across all traits and methods were equal to 0.467 (SNP) versus 0.471 (pseudo-SNP) in Alpine and 0.528 (SNP) versus 0.523 (pseudo-SNP) in Saanen. With WssGBLUP, gains in accuracy of up to 24% (0.298 to 0.370 for fat yield) in Alpine and 14% (0.431 to 0.490 for SCS) in Saanen were observed with WssGBLUP. Accuracies of WssGBLUP averaged across all traits and methods were equal to 0.455 (SNP and pseudo-SNP) in Alpine and 0.542 (SNP) versus 0.528 (pseudo-SNP) in Saanen. The average (±SD) slope of the regression of DD on GEBV for the validation animals, across all breeds, traits and scenarios, were equal to 0.82 ± 0.20 (SNP) and 0.83 ± 0.18 (pseudo-SNP) for ssGBLUP and 0.67 ± 0.16 (SNP) and 0.65 ± 0.16 (pseudo-SNP) for WssGBLUP, which suggest that haplotype-based models and ssGBLUP SNP were similarly biased. However, WssGBLUP was more biased than ssGBLUP, and its gains in accuracies were limited to milk production traits. Despite the fact that genomic predictions based on haplotypes require additional steps and time, the observed gains in GEBV predictive performance indicate that haplotype-based methods could be recommended for some traits.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».