Accounting for uncertainty in QTL location in marker-assisted pre-selection of young bulls prior to progeny test
The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the efficacy of marker assisted selection (MAS) could be improved by considering a confidence interval (CI) of QTL position. Specifically, MAS was applied for within-family selection in a stochastic simulation of a closed nucleus herd. The location...
| Autores principales: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Lenguaje: | Inglés |
| Publicado: |
Wiley
2002
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/32972 |
| _version_ | 1855539662591885312 |
|---|---|
| author | Stella, A. Janson, G.B. Boettcher, P.J. Gibson, John P. Lohuis, M.M. Pagnacco, G. |
| author_browse | Boettcher, P.J. Gibson, John P. Janson, G.B. Lohuis, M.M. Pagnacco, G. Stella, A. |
| author_facet | Stella, A. Janson, G.B. Boettcher, P.J. Gibson, John P. Lohuis, M.M. Pagnacco, G. |
| author_sort | Stella, A. |
| collection | Repository of Agricultural Research Outputs (CGSpace) |
| description | The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the efficacy of marker assisted selection (MAS) could be improved by considering a confidence interval (CI) of QTL position. Specifically, MAS was applied for within-family selection in a stochastic simulation of a closed nucleus herd. The location and effect of the QTL were estimated by least squares interval mapping with a granddaughter design and marker information was then used in a top down scheme. Three approaches were used to select the best bull within full sibships of 3 or 40 bulls. All three were based on the probability of inheriting the favorable allele from the grandsire (PROB). The first method selected the sib with the highest PROB at the location with the highest F-ratio (MAX). The other two approaches were based on sums of estimated regression coefficients weighted by PROB at each cM within a 95% CI based on either bootstrapping (BOOT) or approximate LOD scores (LOD). Accounting for CI increased the relative genetic gain in all scenarios. The average breeding value (BV) of the selected bulls was increased by 2.00, 2.60 and 2.59% when MASwas applied using MAX,BOOTand LOD, respectively, compared to random selection (h2 Ã 0.30). Selected bulls carried the correct allele in 63.0, 68.5, 67.6 and 50.1% of the cases for MAX, BOOT, LOD and random selection, respectively. |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | CGSpace32972 |
| institution | CGIAR Consortium |
| language | Inglés |
| publishDate | 2002 |
| publishDateRange | 2002 |
| publishDateSort | 2002 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| publisherStr | Wiley |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | CGSpace329722023-12-27T19:59:55Z Accounting for uncertainty in QTL location in marker-assisted pre-selection of young bulls prior to progeny test Stella, A. Janson, G.B. Boettcher, P.J. Gibson, John P. Lohuis, M.M. Pagnacco, G. bulls progeny testing selection genotypes methods breeding value models The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the efficacy of marker assisted selection (MAS) could be improved by considering a confidence interval (CI) of QTL position. Specifically, MAS was applied for within-family selection in a stochastic simulation of a closed nucleus herd. The location and effect of the QTL were estimated by least squares interval mapping with a granddaughter design and marker information was then used in a top down scheme. Three approaches were used to select the best bull within full sibships of 3 or 40 bulls. All three were based on the probability of inheriting the favorable allele from the grandsire (PROB). The first method selected the sib with the highest PROB at the location with the highest F-ratio (MAX). The other two approaches were based on sums of estimated regression coefficients weighted by PROB at each cM within a 95% CI based on either bootstrapping (BOOT) or approximate LOD scores (LOD). Accounting for CI increased the relative genetic gain in all scenarios. The average breeding value (BV) of the selected bulls was increased by 2.00, 2.60 and 2.59% when MASwas applied using MAX,BOOTand LOD, respectively, compared to random selection (h2 Ã 0.30). Selected bulls carried the correct allele in 63.0, 68.5, 67.6 and 50.1% of the cases for MAX, BOOT, LOD and random selection, respectively. 2002-02 2013-07-03T05:25:51Z 2013-07-03T05:25:51Z Journal Article https://hdl.handle.net/10568/32972 en Limited Access Wiley Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics;119(1): 15-24 |
| spellingShingle | bulls progeny testing selection genotypes methods breeding value models Stella, A. Janson, G.B. Boettcher, P.J. Gibson, John P. Lohuis, M.M. Pagnacco, G. Accounting for uncertainty in QTL location in marker-assisted pre-selection of young bulls prior to progeny test |
| title | Accounting for uncertainty in QTL location in marker-assisted pre-selection of young bulls prior to progeny test |
| title_full | Accounting for uncertainty in QTL location in marker-assisted pre-selection of young bulls prior to progeny test |
| title_fullStr | Accounting for uncertainty in QTL location in marker-assisted pre-selection of young bulls prior to progeny test |
| title_full_unstemmed | Accounting for uncertainty in QTL location in marker-assisted pre-selection of young bulls prior to progeny test |
| title_short | Accounting for uncertainty in QTL location in marker-assisted pre-selection of young bulls prior to progeny test |
| title_sort | accounting for uncertainty in qtl location in marker assisted pre selection of young bulls prior to progeny test |
| topic | bulls progeny testing selection genotypes methods breeding value models |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/10568/32972 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT stellaa accountingforuncertaintyinqtllocationinmarkerassistedpreselectionofyoungbullspriortoprogenytest AT jansongb accountingforuncertaintyinqtllocationinmarkerassistedpreselectionofyoungbullspriortoprogenytest AT boettcherpj accountingforuncertaintyinqtllocationinmarkerassistedpreselectionofyoungbullspriortoprogenytest AT gibsonjohnp accountingforuncertaintyinqtllocationinmarkerassistedpreselectionofyoungbullspriortoprogenytest AT lohuismm accountingforuncertaintyinqtllocationinmarkerassistedpreselectionofyoungbullspriortoprogenytest AT pagnaccog accountingforuncertaintyinqtllocationinmarkerassistedpreselectionofyoungbullspriortoprogenytest |