title: Impact of reduced marker set estimation of genomic relationship matrices on genomic selection for feed efficiency in Angus cattle.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Molecular estimates of breeding value are expected to increase selection response due to improvements in the accuracy of selection and a reduction in generation interval, particularly for traits that are difficult or expensive to record or are measured late in life. Several statistical methods for incorporating molecular data into breeding value estimation have been proposed, however, most studies have utilized simulated data in which the generated linkage disequilibrium may not represent the targeted livestock population. A genomic relationship matrix was developed for 698 Angus steers and 1,707 Angus sires using 41,028 single nucleotide polymorphisms and breeding values were estimated using feed efficiency phenotypes (average daily feed intake, residual feed intake, and average daily gain) recorded on the steers. The number of SNPs needed to accurately estimate a genomic relationship matrix was evaluated in this population.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Results were compared to estimates produced from pedigree-based mixed model analysis of 862 Angus steers with 34,864 identified paternal relatives but no female ancestors. Estimates of additive genetic variance and breeding value accuracies were similar for AFI and RFI using the numerator and genomic relationship matrices despite fewer animals in the genomic analysis. Bootstrap analyses indicated that 2,500-10,000 markers are required for robust estimation of genomic relationship matrices in cattle.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This research shows that breeding values and their accuracies may be estimated for commercially important sires for traits recorded in experimental populations without the need for pedigree data to establish identity by descent between members of the commercial and experimental populations when at least 2,500 SNPs are available for the generation of a genomic relationship matrix.
authors.affiliation: Division of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211-5300, USA. mmr5x7@mail.missouri.edu
authors.forename: Megan M
authors.initials: MM
authors.lastname: Rolf
authors.forename: Jeremy F
authors.initials: JF
authors.lastname: Taylor
authors.forename: Robert D
authors.initials: RD
authors.lastname: Schnabel
authors.forename: Stephanie D
authors.initials: SD
authors.lastname: McKay
authors.forename: Matthew C
authors.initials: MC
authors.lastname: McClure
authors.forename: Sally L
authors.initials: SL
authors.lastname: Northcutt
authors.forename: Monty S
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Kerley
authors.forename: Robert L
authors.initials: RL
authors.lastname: Weaber
mesh_terms: D000821:Animal Feed; D000818:Animals; D001947:Breeding; D002417:Cattle / Q000235:genetics*; D005247:Feeding Behavior; D016014:Linear Models; D008297:Male; D010375:Pedigree; D020641:Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; D012641:Selection, Genetic
references.citation: Biometrics. 1975 Jun;31(2):423-47
references.pmid: 1174616
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2007 Jan;90(1):376-91
references.pmid: 17183106
references.citation: Genetics. 2008 Jan;178(1):553-61
references.pmid: 18202394
references.citation: J Anim Sci. 2001 Nov;79(11):2805-11
references.pmid: 11768108
references.citation: Genetics. 1943 Nov;28(6):476-90
references.pmid: 17247099
references.citation: J Anim Sci. 2007 Apr;85(4):881-5
references.pmid: 17085728
references.citation: Am J Hum Genet. 2006 Apr;78(4):629-44
references.pmid: 16532393
references.citation: Nat Methods. 2006 Jan;3(1):31-3
references.pmid: 16369550
references.citation: J Anim Sci. 2005 Mar;83(3):694-704
references.pmid: 15705767
references.citation: J Anim Sci. 2007 Mar;85(3):641-9
references.pmid: 17085722
references.citation: J Anim Sci. 2010 Jan;88(1):16-22
references.pmid: 19749024
references.citation: Nat Methods. 2008 Mar;5(3):247-52
references.pmid: 18297082
references.citation: J Anim Sci. 1997 Aug;75(8):2024-32
references.pmid: 9263047
references.citation: Genes Genet Syst. 2002 Apr;77(2):123-30
references.pmid: 12087195
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2009 Feb;92(2):433-43
references.pmid: 19164653
references.citation: PLoS One. 2009;4(4):e5350
references.pmid: 19390634
references.citation: Mamm Genome. 2002 May;13(5):272-81
references.pmid: 12016516
references.citation: Genet Res (Camb). 2009 Feb;91(1):47-60
references.pmid: 19220931
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2007 Oct;90(10):4821-9
references.pmid: 17881705
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2009 Jan;92(1):16-24
references.pmid: 19109259
references.citation: Genetics. 2001 Apr;157(4):1819-29
references.pmid: 11290733
references.citation: Genetics. 1994 May;137(1):319-29
references.pmid: 8056319
references.citation: J Anim Breed Genet. 2006 Aug;123(4):218-23
references.pmid: 16882088
references.citation: Genet Sel Evol. 2008 Jan-Feb;40(1):91-102
references.pmid: 18096117
references.citation: J Anim Breed Genet. 2007 Dec;124(6):321-2
references.pmid: 18076468
references.citation: J Anim Sci. 2008 Sep;86(9):2089-92
references.pmid: 18407982
references.citation: J Anim Sci. 1993 Dec;71(12):3239-50
references.pmid: 8294275
references.citation: J Dairy Sci. 2008 Nov;91(11):4414-23
references.pmid: 18946147
references.citation: J Anim Breed Genet. 2007 Dec;124(6):331-41
references.pmid: 18076470