title: Genotype by environment (climate) interaction improves genomic prediction for production traits in US Holstein cattle.
abstract: Genotype by environment interaction (G × E) in dairy cattle productive traits has been shown to exist, but current genetic evaluation methods do not take this component into account. As several environmental descriptors (e.g., climate, farming system) are known to vary within the United States, not accounting for the G × E could lead to reranking of bulls and loss in genetic gain. Using test-day records on milk yield, somatic cell score, fat, and protein percentage from all over the United States, we computed within herd-year-season daughter yield deviations for 1,087 Holstein bulls and regressed them on genetic and environmental information to estimate variance components and to assess prediction accuracy. Genomic information was obtained from a 50k SNP marker panel. Environmental effect inputs included herd (160 levels), geographical region (7 levels), geographical location (2 variables), climate information (7 variables), and management conditions of the herds (16 total variables divided in 4 subgroups). For each set of environmental descriptors, environmental, genomic, and G × E components were sequentially fitted. Variance components estimates confirmed the presence of G × E on milk yield, with its effect being larger than main genetic effect and the environmental effect for some models. Conversely, G × E was moderate for somatic cell score and small for milk composition. Genotype by environment interaction, when included, partially eroded the genomic effect (as compared with the models where G × E was not included), suggesting that the genomic variance could at least in part be attributed to G × E not appropriately accounted for. Model predictive ability was assessed using 3 cross-validation schemes (new bulls, incomplete progeny test, and new environmental conditions), and performance was compared with a reference model including only the main genomic effect. In each scenario, at least 1 of the models including G × E was able to perform better than the reference model, although it was not possible to find the overall best-performing model that included the same set of environmental descriptors. In general, the methodology used is promising in accounting for G × E in genomic predictions, but challenges exist in identifying a unique set of covariates capable of describing the entire variety of environments.
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695. Electronic address: f_tiezzi@ncsu.edu.
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Tiezzi
authors.affiliation: Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University, East Lansing 48828.
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: de Los Campos
authors.affiliation: Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding, Bowie, MD 20716.
authors.forename: K L
authors.initials: KL
authors.lastname: Parker Gaddis
authors.affiliation: Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695.
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Maltecca
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001947:Breeding; D002417:Cattle / Q000235:genetics*; D002980:Climate; D004777:Environment; D005260:Female; D059647:Gene-Environment Interaction; D016678:Genome; D023281:Genomics; D005838:Genotype; D007774:Lactation / Q000235:genetics; D008297:Male; D008892:Milk / Q000378:metabolism; D010641:Phenotype
keywords: genomic prediction; genotype by environment interaction; reaction norm model; reproducing kernel Hilbert space regression