title: Accuracy of genomic selection for a sib-evaluated trait using identity-by-state and identity-by-descent relationships.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  GBLUP (genomic best linear unbiased prediction) uses high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers to construct genomic identity-by-state (IBS) relationship matrices. However, identity-by-descent (IBD) relationships can be accurately calculated for extremely sparse markers. Here, we compare the accuracy of prediction of genome-wide breeding values (GW-BV) for a sib-evaluated trait in a typical aquaculture population, assuming either IBS or IBD genomic relationship matrices, and by varying marker density and size of the training dataset.
  
  
  METHODS
  A simulation study was performed, assuming a population with strong family structure over three subsequent generations. Traditional and genomic BLUP were used to estimate breeding values, the latter using either IBS or IBD genomic relationship matrices, with marker densities ranging from 10 to ~1200 SNPs/Morgan (M). Heritability ranged from 0.1 to 0.8, and phenotypes were recorded on 25 to 45 sibs per full-sib family (50 full-sib families). Models were compared based on their predictive ability (accuracy) with respect to true breeding values of unphenotyped (albeit genotyped) sibs in the last generation.
  
  
  RESULTS
  As expected, genomic prediction had greater accuracy compared to pedigree-based prediction. At the highest marker density, genomic prediction based on IBS information (IBS-GS) was slightly superior to that based on IBD information (IBD-GS), while at lower densities (≤100 SNPs/M), IBD-GS was more accurate. At the lowest densities (10 to 20 SNPs/M), IBS-GS was even outperformed by the pedigree-based model. Accuracy of IBD-GS was stable across marker densities performing well even down to 10 SNPs/M (2.5 to 6.1% reduction in accuracy compared to ~1200 SNPs/M). Loss of accuracy due to reduction in the size of training datasets was moderate and similar for both genomic prediction models. The relative superiority of (high-density) IBS-GS over IBD-GS was more pronounced for traits with a low heritability.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Using dense markers, GBLUP based on either IBD or IBS relationship matrices proved to perform better than a pedigree-based model. However, accuracy of IBS-GS declined rapidly with decreasing marker densities, and was even outperformed by a traditional pedigree-based model at the lowest densities. In contrast, the accuracy of IBD-GS was very stable across marker densities.
authors.affiliation: Institute of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, NO, 1432, Norway. sergio.avitua@nmbu.no.|Nofima, P.O. Box 210, Ås, NO, 1431, Norway. sergio.avitua@nmbu.no.
authors.forename: Sergio
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Vela-Avitúa
authors.affiliation: Institute of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, NO, 1432, Norway. theo.meuwissen@nmbu.no.
authors.forename: Theo H E
authors.initials: TH
authors.lastname: Meuwissen
authors.affiliation: Institute of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, NO, 1432, Norway. tu.luan@nmbu.no.
authors.forename: Tu
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Luan
authors.affiliation: Institute of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, NO, 1432, Norway. jorgen.odegard@nmbu.no.|AquaGen AS, Sluppen, P.O. Box 1240, 7462, Trondheim, NO, Norway. jorgen.odegard@nmbu.no.
authors.forename: Jørgen
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Ødegård
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D017756:Aquaculture / Q000379:methods; D001947:Breeding; D003198:Computer Simulation; D016678:Genome; D023281:Genomics / Q000379:methods*; D005838:Genotype; D008957:Models, Genetic; D010375:Pedigree; D010641:Phenotype; D020641:Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide; D040641:Quantitative Trait Loci / Q000235:genetics; D012641:Selection, Genetic / Q000235:genetics*; D035781:Siblings