Department of Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin1
Genomic selection has forever changed the field of animal breeding, and this technology has had a remarkable impact on dairy cattle improvement programs, where long generation intervals and sex-limited traits add complexity and expense to conventional pedigree-based selection schemes. Tens of thousands of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers dispersed across the genome can be used to track the inheritance of chromosomal segments from one generation to the next, and these markers tend to be inherited with nearby and typically unknown quantitative trait loci (QTL) that affect the phenotypes for traits of economic importance on dairy farms. More importantly, knowledge of the relationships between SNP markers and nearby QTL in older reference population animals with both genotypic and phenotypic data can be used to predict the genomic estimated breeding values (EBV) of young selection candidates for which only genomic test results are available. Development of statistical methods for estimation of SNP effects and prediction of genomic EBV, as well as methods for imputation of inexpensive low-density SNP genotypes to higher density, has been rapid. This technology has been adopted quickly in North America, where approximately two million dairy cattle have been genomic tested over the past eight years. The rate of genetic progress for most traits has doubled, due to much shorter generation intervals for the sires of males, sires of females, and dams of males selection pathways, in addition to greater accuracy of decisions involving female selection candidates. The next frontier in genomic selection is development of routine predictions for novel traits that are too difficult and expensive to measure in traditional milk-recording programs, such as feed efficiency, calfhood pneumonia, and early postpartum health. In the long-term, genome-guided decision tools offer promise as regards the management of animal health, performance, and welfare, but significant research is needed to make these opportunities, which are the bovine equivalent of personalized medicine, technically feasible and cost-effective on commercial dairy farms.
1. Bovine Genome Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, Elsik CG, Tellam RL, Worley KC (2009) The genome sequence of taurine cattle: A window to ruminant biology and evolution. Science 324: 522-528.
2. de los Campos G, Naya H, Gianola D, Crossa J, Legarra A, Manfredi E, Weigel K, Cotes JM (2009) Predicting quantitative traits with regression models for dense molecular markers and pedigree. Genetics 182: 375-385.
3. Dekkers JC (2004) Commercial application of marker- and gene-assisted selection in livestock: strategies and lessons. J Anim. Sci 82(E-Suppl.): E313-28.
4. .Ehret A, Hochstuhl D, Gianola D, Thaller G (2015) Application of neural networks with back-propagation to genome-enabled prediction of complex traits in Holstein-Friesian and German Fleckvieh cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol 47: 22-31.
5. Erbe M, Hayes BJ, Matukumali LK, Goswami S, Bowman PJ, Reich CM, Mason BA, Goddard ME (2012) Improving accuracy of genomic predictions within and between dairy cattle breeds with imputed high-density single nucleotide polymorphism panels. J Dairy Sci 95: 4114-4129.
6. Garner JB, Douglas ML, Williams SRO, Wales WJ, Marett LC, Nguyen TTT, Reich CM, Hayes BJ (2016) Genomic selection improves heat tolerance in dairy cattle. Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 34114, doi:10.1038/ srep34114.
7. García-Ruiz A, Cole JB, VanRaden PM, Wiggans GR, Ruiz-López FJ, Van Tassell CP (2016) Changes in genetic selection differentials and generation intervals in US Holstein dairy cattle as a result of genomic selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113: E3995-4004.
8. Graves RR (1925) Improving dairy cattle by the continuous use of the proved sire. J. Dairy Sci 5: 391-404.
9. Grisart B, Coppieters W, Farner F, Karim L, Ford C, Berzi P, Cambisano N, Mni M, Reid S, Simon P, Spelman R, Georges M, Snell R (2002) Positional cloning of a QTL in dairy cattle: Identification of a missense mutation in the bovine DGAT1 gene with major effect on milk yield and composition. Genome Res 12: 222-231.
10. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM (2009) Genomic selection using low-density marker panels. Genetics 182: 343-353.
11. Habier D, Fernando R, Kizilkaya K, Garrick D (2011) Extension of the Bayesian alphabet for genomic selection. BMC Bioinformatics 12: 186-197.
12. Hazel LN, Lush JL (1942) The efficiency of three methods of selection. J. Heredity 33: 393-399.
13. Henderson CR (1953) Estimation of variance and covariance components. Biometrics 9: 226-252.
14. Henderson CR (1976) A simple method for computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix used for prediction of breeding values. Biometrics 32: 69-83.
15. Howie BN, Donnelly P, Marchini J (2009) A flexible and accurate genotype imputation method for the next generation of genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genet 5: e1000529.
16. Lande R, Thompson R (1990) Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics 124: 743-756.
17. Legarra A, Aguilar I, Misztal I (2009) A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. J. Dairy Sci 92: 4656-4663.
18. Legarra A, Christensen OF, Aguilar I, Misztal I (2014) Single step, a general approach for genomic selection. Livest. Sci 166: 54-65.
19. Long N, Gianola D, Rosa GJM, Weigel KA, Avendaño S (2007) Machine learning procedure for selecting single nucleotide polymorphisms in genomic selection: Application to early mortality in broilers. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 124: 377-389.
20. Lush JL (1944) The optimum emphasis on dams’ records when proving dairy sires. J. Dairy Sci 27: 937-951.
21. .Matukumalli LK, Lawley CT, Schnabel RD, Taylor JF, Allan MF, Heaton MP, O’Connell J, Moore SS, Smith TPL, Sonstegard TS, Van Tassell CP (2009) Development and characterization of a high density SNP genotyping assay for cattle. PLoS ONE 4:e5350 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005350.
22. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157: 1819-1829.
23. Misztal I, Legarra A, Aguilar I (2009) Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree and genomic information. J Dairy Sci 92: 4648-4655.
24. Misztal I, Legarra A, Aguilar I (2014) Using recursion to compute the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix. J Dairy Sci 97: 3943-3952.
25. Nejati-Javaremi A, Smith C, Gibson JP (1997) Effect of total allelic relationship on accuracy of evaluation and response to selection. J Anim. Sci 75: 1738-1745.
26. Norman HD, Powell RL, Dickinson FN (1976) Modified contemporary and herdmate comparisons in sire summary. J Dairy Sci 59: 2155-2161.
27. Ravagnolo R, Misztal I, Hoogenboom G (2000) Genetic component of heat stress in dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci. 83: 2120-2125.
28. Robertson A, Rendel JM (1954) The performance of heifers got by A.I. J. Agr. Sci 44: 184-192.
29. Robertson A, Stewart A, Ashton ED (1956) The progeny assessment of dairy sires for milk: The use of contemporary comparisons. Proc. Brit. Soc. of Anim. Prod 1956: 43-50.
30. Scheet P, Stephens M (2006) A fast and flexible statistical model for large-scale population genotype data: Applications to inferring missing genotypes and haplotypic phase. Am. J. Hum. Genet 78: 629-644.
31. .VanRaden PM, Olson KM, Null DJ, Hutchison JL (2011) Harmful recessive effects on fertility detected by the absence of homozygous haplotypes. J Dairy Sci 94: 6153-6161.
32. .VanRaden PM, Van Tassell CP, Wiggans GR, Sonstegard TS, Schnabel RD, Taylor JF, Schenkel FS (2009) Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci 92: 16-24.
33. VanRaden PM, Wiggans GR (1991) Derivation, calculation, and use of national animal model information. J Dairy Sci 74: 2737-2746.
34. Visscher PM (2008) Sizing up human height variation. Nat. Genet 40: 489-490.
35. Vukasinovic N., Bacciu N, Przybyla C, Boddhireddy P, DeNise S (2016) Development of genetic and genomic evaluation for wellness traits in U.S. Holstein cows. J Dairy Sci 100: 428-438.
36. Weigel KA, de los Campos G, Vazquez AI, Rosa GJM, Gianola D, Van Tassell CP (2010b) Accuracy of direct genomic values derived from imputed single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes in Jersey cattle. J Dairy Sci 93: 5423-5435.
37. Weigel KA, Hoffman PC, Herring W, Lawlor TJ, Jr. (2012) Potential gains in lifetime net merit from genomic testing of cows, heifers, and calves on commercial dairy farms. J Dairy Sci 95: 2215-2225.
38. Weigel KA, Pralle RS, Adams H, Cho K, Do C, White HM (2017) Prediction of whole genome risk for selection and management of hyperketonemia in Holstein dairy cattle. J. Anim. Breed. Genet 134: 275-285.
39. Weigel KA, Van Tassell CP, O’Connell JR, VanRaden PM, Wiggans GR (2010a) Prediction of unobserved single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes of Jersey cattle using reference panels and population-based imputation algorithms. J Dairy Sci 93: 2229-2238.
40. Wiggans GR, VanRaden PM (1989) USDA-DHIA animal model for genetic evaluations. Natl. Coop. Dairy Herd Improvement Program Handbook, Fact Sheet H-2, Washington, DC.
41. .Wiggans GR, Cole JB, Hubbard SM, Sonstegard TS (2017) Genomic selection in dairy cattle: The USDA experience. Annu. Review Anim. Biosci 5: 309-327.
42. Yao C, Spurlock D, Weigel KA, Armentano LE, VandeHaar M (2013) Random forests approach for identifying additive and epistatic SNPs associated with residual feed intake in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 6716-6729.
43. Yapp WW (1925) Transmitting ability of dairy sires. J Anim. Sci 1: 90-92.