Czech J. Anim. Sci., 2018, 63(12):492-506 | DOI: 10.17221/83/2017-CJAS

Genomic evaluation and variance component estimation of additive and dominance effects using single nucleotide polymorphism markers in heterogeneous stock miceOriginal Paper

Morteza Mahdavi1,2, Gholam Reza Dashab*,1, Mehdi Vafaye Valleh1, Mohammad Rokouei1,3, Mehdi Sargolzaei4,5
1 Department of Animal Science, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran
2 Arak Branch, Razi Vaccine and Serum Research Institute, Agricultural Research, Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Arak, Iran
3 Department of Bioinformatics, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran
4 Department of Pathobiology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada
5 HiggsGene Solutions Inc., Guelph, Canada

Exploration of genetic variance has mostly been limited to additive effects estimated using pedigree data and non-additive effects have been ignored. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) marker models in the mixed and orthogonal framework including both additive and non-additive effects for estimating variances and genomic prediction in four diabetes-related traits in heterogeneous stock mice. Models have performed differently in detecting SNPs affecting traits. Dominance variances explained over 14.7 and 3.8% of genetic and phenotype variance in a Genomic prediction and variance component estimation method (GVCBLUP) framework. Reliabilities of additive Genomic best linear unbiased prediction model (GBLUP) in different traits ranged from 44.8 to 66.6%, for GVCBLUPs framework including both additive and dominance effects (MAD), and 46.1 to 69% for the model including additive effect (MA). Dominance GBLUP reliabilities ranged from 6 to 26.4% for MAD and from 22.5 to 50.5% in the model including dominance (MD). MA and MD had higher reliability for additive and dominance GBLUPs compared to MAD. Reliabilities of GBLUPs in MAD and MA for all traits were not significant except for growth slope (P < 0.01). In orthogonal framework models, epistasis variances accounted for a greater proportion (87.3, 89.1, 95.5, and 77.2%) of genetic variation for end weight, growth slope, body mass index, and body length, respectively. Heritability in a broad sense was estimated at 1.12, 1.67, 3.64, and 2.0%, in which non-additive heritability had a significant contribution. Genetic variances explained by dominance using GVCBLUPs were 16.8, 29.4, 14.6, and 14.9% for the traits. Generally, the non-additive models had a lower value of deviance information criterion (DIC) and performed better in estimating the variance component. Comparing the estimated variance by orthogonal framework models confirmed the results previously estimated by GVCBLUPs, with the difference that the estimates were shrinking. Following significant SNPs affecting diabetes-related traits by post-genome-wide studies could reveal unknown aspects and contribute to genetic control of the disease.

Keywords: orthogonal; genomic; SNP; model; mouse; genetic effect

Published: December 31, 2018  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Mahdavi M, Dashab GR, Valleh MV, Rokouei M, Sargolzaei M. Genomic evaluation and variance component estimation of additive and dominance effects using single nucleotide polymorphism markers in heterogeneous stock mice. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2018;63(12):492-506. doi: 10.17221/83/2017-CJAS.
Download citation

Supplementary files:

Download fileMahdavi_SOM separate.pdf

File size: 431.24 kB

References

  1. Alvarez-Castro J.M., Carlborg O. (2007): A unified model for functional and statistical epistasis and its application in quantitative trait loci analysis. Genetics, 176, 1151-1167. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Armando C., Albert T., Peter D.K. (2015): The nature of genetic variation for complex traits revealed by GWAS and Regional Heritability Mapping analyses. Genetics, 201, 1601-1613. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Carlborg R., Hocking P.M., Burt D.W., Haley C.S. (2004): Simultaneous mapping of epistatic QTL in chickens reveals clusters of QTL pairs with similar genetic effects on growth. Genetical Research, 83, 197-209. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. de los Campos G., Hickey J.M., Pong-Wong R., Daetwyler H.D., Calus M.P. (2013): Whole-genome regression and prediction methods applied to plant and animal breeding. Genetics, 193, 327-345. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Duangjinda M., Bertrand J.K., Misztal I., Druet T. (2001): Estimation of additive and nonadditive genetic variances in Hereford, Gelbvieh, and Charolais by Method R. Journal of Animal Science, 79, 2997-3001. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Grosse-Brinkhaus C., Jonas E., Buschbell H., Phatsara C., Tesfaye D., Jungst H., Looft C., Schellander K., Tholen E. (2010): Epistatic QTL pairs associated with meat quality and carcass composition traits in a porcine Duroc × Pietrain population. Genetics Selection Evolution, 42, 1-13. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Hill W.G., Goddard M.E., Visscher P.M. (2008): Data and theory point to the mainly additive genetic variance for complex traits. PLoS Genetics, 4, 1000008. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Jiang Y., Reif J.C. (2015): Modeling epistasis in genomic selection. Genetics, 201, 759-768. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Misztal I., Tsuruta S., Strabel T., Auvray B., Druet T., Lee D.H. (2002): BLUPF90 and related programs (BGF90). In: Proc. 7th Annu. World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, France.
  10. Mott R., Christopher J., Talbot M.G., Turri A.C., Collins J.F. (2000): A method for fine mapping quantitative trait loci in outbred animal stocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 97, 12649-12654. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  11. Munoz P.R, Resende M.F.J., Gezan S.A., Resende M.D., de los Campos G., Kirst M., Huber D., Peter G.F. (2014): Unraveling additive from non-additive effects using genomic relationship matrices. Genetics, 198, 1759-1768. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Nishio M., Satoh M. (2014): Including dominance effects in the genomic BLUP method for genomic evaluation. PLoS ONE, 9, e85792. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  13. Palucci V., Schaeffer L.R., Miglior F., Osborne V. (2007): Non-additive genetic effects for fertility traits in Canadian Holstein cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution, 39, 181-193. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  14. Su G., Christensen O.F., Ostersen T., Henryon M., Lund M.S. (2012): Estimating additive and non-additive genetic variances and predicting genetic merits using genomewide dense single nucleotide polymorphism markers. PLoS ONE, 7, e45293. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  15. Tempelman R.J, Burnside E.B. (1990): Additive and nonadditive genetic variation for conformation traits in Canadian Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science, 73, 2214-2220. Go to original source...
  16. Valdar W., Solberg L.C., Gauguier D., Burnett S., Klenerman P., Cookson W., Taylor M., Rawlins N.P., Mott R., Flint J. (2006): Genome-wide genetic association of complex traits in heterogeneous stock mice. Nature Genetics, 38, 879-887. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  17. Van Tassell C.P., Misztal I., Varona L. (2000): Method R estimates of additive genetic, dominance genetic, and a permanent environmental fraction of variance for yield and health traits of Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science, 83, 1873-1877. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  18. Vinkhuyzen A.A.E., Wray N.R., Yang J., Goddard M.E., Visscher P.M. (2013): Estimation and partitioning of heritability in human populations using whole genome analysis methods. Annual Review of Genetics, 47, 75-95. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  19. Visscher P.M., Yang J.A., Goddard M.E. (2010): A commentary on "common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height" by Yang et al. (2010). Twin Research and Human Genetics, 13, 517-524. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  20. Vitezica Z.G., Legarra A., Toro M.A., Varona L. (2017): Orthogonal estimates of variances for additive, dominance and epistatic effects in populations. Genetics, 206, 1297-1307. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  21. Wang C., Dzianis P., Shengwen W., Sujata P., Hakizumwami B.R., Yang D. (2014): GVCBLUP: a computer package for genomic prediction and variance component estimation of additive and dominance effects. BMC Bioinformatics, 15, 1-13. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  22. Wang S., Dvorkin D., Da Y. (2012): SNPEVG: A graphical tool for GWAS graphing with mouse clicks. BMC Bioinformatics, 13, 1-6. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  23. Wellmann R., Bennewitz J. (2012): Bayesian models with dominance effects for genomic evaluation of quantitative traits. Genetics Research, 94, 21-37. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  24. Wittenburg D., Melzer N., Reinsch N. (2015): Genomic additive and dominance variance of milk performance traits. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 132, 3-8. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  25. Wood A., Esko T., Yang J. et al. (2014): Defining the role of common variation in the genomic and biological architecture of adult human height. Nature Genetics, 46, 1173-1186. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  26. Wray N.R., Goddard M.E., Visscher P.M. (2007): Prediction of individual genetic risk to disease from genome-wide association studies. Genome Research, 17, 1520-1528. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  27. Yang D., Wang C., Wang S., Hu G. (2014): Mixed model methods for genomic prediction and variance component estimation of additive and dominance effects using SNP markers. PLoS ONE, 9, e87666. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  28. Zeng J., Toosi A., Fernando R.L., Dekkers J.C., Garrick D.J. (2013): Genomic selection of purebred animals for crossbred performance in the presence of dominant gene action. Genetics Selection Evolution, 45, 1-17. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  29. Zhang W., Dai X., Wang Q., Xu S., Zhao P.X. (2016): PEPIS: A pipeline for estimating epistatic effects in quantitative trait locus mapping and genome-wide association studies. PLOS Computational Biology, 12, e1004925. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.