Multifactorial methods integrating haplotype and epistasis effects for genomic estimation and prediction of quantitative traits

Investigating the impact of non-additive genetic effects in the estimation of variance components and genomic predictions for heat tolerance and performance traits in crossbred and purebred pig populations

BACKGROUND

Non-additive genetic effects are often ignored in livestock genetic evaluations. However, fitting them in the models could improve the accuracy of genomic breeding values. Furthermore, non-additive genetic effects contribute to heterosis, which could be optimized through mating designs. Traits related to fitness and adaptation, such as heat tolerance, tend to be more influenced by non-additive genetic effects. In this context, the primary objectives of this study were to estimate variance components and assess the predictive performance of genomic prediction of breeding values based on alternative models and two independent datasets, including performance records from a purebred pig population and heat tolerance indicators recorded in crossbred lactating sows.

RESULTS

Including non-additive genetic effects when modelling performance traits in purebred pigs had no effect on the residual variance estimates for most of the traits, but lower additive genetic variances were observed, especially when additive-by-additive epistasis was included in the models. Furthermore, including non-additive genetic effects did not improve the prediction accuracy of genomic breeding values, but there was animal re-ranking across the models. For the heat tolerance indicators recorded in a crossbred population, most traits had small non-additive genetic variance with large standard error estimates. Nevertheless, panting score and hair density presented substantial additive-by-additive epistatic variance. Panting score had an epistatic variance estimate of 0.1379, which accounted for 82.22% of the total genetic variance. For hair density, the epistatic variance estimates ranged from 0.1745 to 0.1845, which represent 64.95-69.59% of the total genetic variance.

CONCLUSIONS

Including non-additive genetic effects in the models did not improve the accuracy of genomic breeding values for performance traits in purebred pigs, but there was substantial re-ranking of selection candidates depending on the model fitted. Except for panting score and hair density, low non-additive genetic variance estimates were observed for heat tolerance indicators in crossbred pigs.

Comparison of the Accuracy of Epistasis and Haplotype Models for Genomic Prediction of Seven Human Phenotypes

The accuracy of predicting seven human phenotypes of 3657-7564 individuals using global epistasis effects was evaluated and compared to the accuracy of haplotype genomic prediction using 380,705 SNPs and 10-fold cross-validation studies. The seven human phenotypes were the normality transformed high density lipoproteins (HDL), low density lipoproteins (LDL), total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), weight (WT), and the original phenotypic observations of height (HTo) and body mass index (BMIo). Fourth-order epistasis effects virtually had no contribution to the phenotypic variances, and third-order epistasis effects did not affect the prediction accuracy. Without haplotype effects in the prediction model, pairwise epistasis effects improved the prediction accuracy over the SNP models for six traits, with accuracy increases of 2.41%, 3.85%, 0.70%, 0.97%, 0.62% and 0.93% for HDL, LDL, TC, HTo, WT and BMIo respectively. However, none of the epistasis models had higher prediction accuracy than the haplotype models we previously reported. The epistasis model for TG decreased the prediction accuracy by 2.35% relative to the accuracy of the SNP model. The integrated models with epistasis and haplotype effects had slightly higher prediction accuracy than the haplotype models for two traits, HDL and BMIo. These two traits were the only traits where additive × dominance effects increased the prediction accuracy. These results indicated that haplotype effects containing local high-order epistasis effects had a tendency to be more important than global pairwise epistasis effects for the seven human phenotypes, and that the genetic mechanism of HDL and BMIo was more complex than that of the other traits.

Genomic prediction with haplotype blocks in wheat

Haplotype blocks might carry additional information compared to single SNPs and have therefore been suggested for use as independent variables in genomic prediction. Studies in different species resulted in more accurate predictions than with single SNPs in some traits but not in others. In addition, it remains unclear how the blocks should be built to obtain the greatest prediction accuracies. Our objective was to compare the results of genomic prediction with different types of haplotype blocks to prediction with single SNPs in 11 traits in winter wheat. We built haplotype blocks from marker data from 361 winter wheat lines based on linkage disequilibrium, fixed SNP numbers, fixed lengths in cM and with the R package HaploBlocker. We used these blocks together with data from single-year field trials in a cross-validation study for predictions with RR-BLUP, an alternative method (RMLA) that allows for heterogeneous marker variances, and GBLUP performed with the software GVCHAP. The greatest prediction accuracies for resistance scores for B. graminis, P. triticina, and F. graminearum were obtained with LD-based haplotype blocks while blocks with fixed marker numbers and fixed lengths in cM resulted in the greatest prediction accuracies for plant height. Prediction accuracies of haplotype blocks built with HaploBlocker were greater than those of the other methods for protein concentration and resistances scores for S. tritici, B. graminis, and P. striiformis. We hypothesize that the trait-dependence is caused by properties of the haplotype blocks that have overlapping and contrasting effects on the prediction accuracy. While they might be able to capture local epistatic effects and to detect ancestral relationships better than single SNPs, prediction accuracy might be reduced by unfavorable characteristics of the design matrices in the models that are due to their multi-allelic nature.

Impact of epistasis effects on the accuracy of predicting phenotypic values of residual feed intake in U. S Holstein cows

The impact of genomic epistasis effects on the accuracy of predicting the phenotypic values of residual feed intake (RFI) in U.S. Holstein cows was evaluated using 6215 Holstein cows and 78,964 SNPs. Two SNP models and seven epistasis models were initially evaluated. Heritability estimates and the accuracy of predicting the RFI phenotypic values from 10-fold cross-validation studies identified the model with SNP additive effects and additive × additive (A×A) epistasis effects (A + A×A model) to be the best prediction model. Under the A + A×A model, additive heritability was 0.141, and A×A heritability was 0.263 that consisted of 0.260 inter-chromosome A×A heritability and 0.003 intra-chromosome A×A heritability, showing that inter-chromosome A×A effects were responsible for the accuracy increases due to A×A. Under the SNP additive model (A-only model), the additive heritability was 0.171. In the 10 validation populations, the average accuracy for predicting the RFI phenotypic values was 0.246 (with range 0.197-0.333) under A + A×A model and was 0.231 (with range of 0.188-0.319) under the A-only model. The average increase in the accuracy of predicting the RFI phenotypic values by the A + A×A model over the A-only model was 6.49% (with range of 3.02-14.29%). Results in this study showed A×A epistasis effects had a positive impact on the accuracy of predicting the RFI phenotypic values when combined with additive effects in the prediction model.