IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v12y2022i2p276-d750191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Methods to Select Candidates for High-Density Genotyping; Practical Observations in a Cattle Breeding Program

Author

Listed:
  • Rudi A. McEwin

    (Davies Livestock Research Centre, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia)

  • Michelle L. Hebart

    (Davies Livestock Research Centre, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia)

  • Helena Oakey

    (Robinson Research Institute, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, North Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia)

  • Rick Tearle

    (Davies Livestock Research Centre, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia)

  • Joe Grose

    (3D Genetics Pty LTD, 939 Pukawidgi Rd, Bukkulla, NSW 2360, Australia)

  • Greg Popplewell

    (Popplewell Genetics, 33 Tom Schmidt Court, Mount Samson, QLD 4520, Australia)

  • Wayne S. Pitchford

    (Davies Livestock Research Centre, School of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia)

Abstract

Imputation can be used to obtain a large number of high-density genotypes at the cost of procuring low-density panels. Accurate imputation requires a well-formed reference population of high-density genotypes to enable statistical inference. Five methods were compared using commercial Wagyu genotype data to identify individuals to produce a “well-formed” reference population. Two methods utilised a relationship matrix (MCG and MCA), two of which utilised a haplotype block library (AHAP2 and IWS), and the last selected high influential sires with greater than 10 progeny (PROG). The efficacy of the methods was assessed based on the total proportion of genetic variance accounted for and the number of haplotypes captured, as well as practical considerations in implementing these methods. Concordance was high between the MCG and MCA and between AHAP2 and IWS but was low between these groupings. PROG-selected animals were most similar to MCA. MCG accounted for the greatest proportion of genetic variance in the population (35%, while the other methods accounted for approximately 30%) and the greatest number of unique haplotypes when a frequency threshold was applied. MCG was also relatively simple to implement, although modifications need to be made to account for DNA availability when running over a whole population. Of the methods compared, MCG is the recommended starting point for an ongoing sequencing project.

Suggested Citation

  • Rudi A. McEwin & Michelle L. Hebart & Helena Oakey & Rick Tearle & Joe Grose & Greg Popplewell & Wayne S. Pitchford, 2022. "Comparison of Methods to Select Candidates for High-Density Genotyping; Practical Observations in a Cattle Breeding Program," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-10, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:276-:d:750191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/2/276/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/2/276/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:2:p:276-:d:750191. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.