Pooled genotyping strategies for the rapid construction of genomic reference populations1

Abstract

The growing concern with the environment is making important for livestock producers to focus on selection for efficiency-related traits, which is a challenge for commercial cattle herds due to the lack of pedigree information. To explore a cost-effective opportunity for genomic evaluations of commercial herds, this study compared the accuracy of bulls' genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) using different pooled genotype strategies. We used ten replicates of previously simulated genomic and phenotypic data for one low (t1) and one moderate (t2) heritability trait of 200 sires and 2,200 progeny. Sire's GEBV were calculated using a univariate mixed model, with a hybrid genomic relationship matrix (h-GRM) relating sires to: 1) 1,100 pools of 2 animals; 2) 440 pools of 5 animals; 3) 220 pools of 10 animals; 4) 110 pools of 20 animals; 5) 88 pools of 25 animals; 6) 44 pools of 50 animals; and 7) 22 pools of 100 animals. Pooling criteria were: at random, grouped sorting by t1, grouped sorting by t2, and grouped sorting by a combination of t1 and t2. The same criteria were used to select 110, 220, 440, and 1,100 individual genotypes for GEBV calculation to compare GEBV accuracy using the same number of individual genotypes and pools. Although the best accuracy was achieved for a given trait when pools were grouped based on that same trait (t1: 0.50-0.56, t2: 0.66-0.77), pooling by one trait impacted negatively on the accuracy of GEBV for the other trait (t1: 0.25-0.46, t2: 0.29-0.71). Therefore, the combined measure may be a feasible alternative to use the same pools to calculate GEBVs for both traits (t1: 0.45-0.57, t2: 0.62-0.76). Pools of 10 individuals were identified as representing a good compromise between loss of accuracy (~10%-15%) and cost savings (~90%) from genotype assays. In addition, we demonstrated that in more than 90% of the simulations, pools present higher sires' GEBV accuracy than individual genotypes when the number of genotype assays is limited (i.e., 110 or 220) and animals are assigned to pools based on phenotype. Pools assigned at random presented the poorest results (t1: 0.07-0.45, t2: 0.14-0.70). In conclusion, pooling by phenotype is the best approach to implementing genomic evaluation using commercial herd data, particularly when pools of 10 individuals are evaluated. While combining phenotypes seems a promising strategy to allow more flexibility to the estimates made using pools, more studies are necessary in this regard.

Keywords: DNA pooling; beef cattle; genomic selection; hybrid genomic relationship matrix.