One of the main animal health problems in tropical and subtropical cattle production is the bovine tick, which causes decreased performance, hide devaluation, increased production costs with acaricide treatments, and transmission of infectious diseases. This study investigated the utility of genomic prediction as a tool to select Braford (BO) and Hereford (HH) cattle resistant to ticks. The accuracy and bias of different methods for direct and blended genomic prediction was assessed using 10,673 tick counts obtained from 3,435 BO and 928 HH cattle belonging to the Delta G Connection breeding program. A subset of 2,803 BO and 652 HH samples were genotyped and 41,045 markers remained after quality control. Log transformed records were adjusted by a pedigree repeatability model to estimate variance components, genetic parameters, and breeding values (EBV) and subsequently used to obtain deregressed EBV. Estimated heritability and repeatability for tick counts were 0.19 ± 0.03 and 0.29 ± 0.01, respectively. Data were split into 5 subsets using k-means and random clustering for cross-validation of genomic predictions. Depending on the method, direct genomic value (DGV) prediction accuracies ranged from 0.35 with Bayes least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) to 0.39 with BayesB for k-means clustering and between 0.42 with BayesLASSO and 0.45 with BayesC for random clustering. All genomic methods were superior to pedigree BLUP (PBLUP) accuracies of 0.26 for k-means and 0.29 for random groups, with highest accuracy gains obtained with BayesB (39%) for k-means and BayesC (55%) for random groups. Blending of historical phenotypic and pedigree information by different methods further increased DGV accuracies by values between 0.03 and 0.05 for direct prediction methods. However, highest accuracy was observed with single-step genomic BLUP with values of 0.48 for -means and 0.56, which represent, respectively, 84 and 93% improvement over PBLUP. Observed random clustering cross-validation breed-specific accuracies ranged between 0.29 and 0.36 for HH and between 0.55 and 0.61 for BO, depending on the blending method. These moderately high values for BO demonstrate that genomic predictions could be used as a practical tool to improve genetic resistance to ticks and in the development of resistant lines of this breed. For HH, accuracies are still in the low to moderate side and this breed training population needs to be increased before genomic selection could be reliably applied to improve tick resistance.

BackgroundStrategies for imputing genotypes from the Illumina-Bovine3K, Illumina-BovineLD (6K), BeefLD-GGP (8K), a non-commercial-15K and IndicusLD-GGP (20K) to either Illumina-BovineSNP50 (50K) or to Illumina-BovineHD (777K) SNP panel, as well as for imputing from 50K, GGP-IndicusHD (90iK) and GGP-BeefHD (90tK) to 777K were investigated. Imputation of low density (<50K) genotypes to 777K was carried out in either one or two steps. Imputation of ungenotyped parents (n = 37 sires) with four or more offspring to the 50K panel was also assessed. There were 2,946 Braford, 664 Hereford and 88 Nellore animals, from which 71, 59 and 88 were genotyped with the 777K panel, while all others had 50K genotypes. The reference population was comprised of 2,735 animals and 175 bulls for 50K and 777K, respectively. The low density panels were simulated by masking genotypes in the 50K or 777K panel for animals born in 2011. Analyses were performed using both Beagle and FImpute software. Genotype imputation accuracy was measured by concordance rate and allelic R2 between true and imputed genotypes.ResultsThe average concordance rate using FImpute was 0.943 and 0.921 averaged across all simulated low density panels to 50K or to 777K, respectively, in comparison with 0.927 and 0.895 using Beagle. The allelic R2 was 0.912 and 0.866 for imputation to 50K or to 777K using FImpute, respectively, and 0.890 and 0.826 using Beagle. One and two steps imputation to 777K produced averaged concordance rates of 0.806 and 0.892 and allelic R2 of 0.674 and 0.819, respectively. Imputation of low density panels to 50K, with the exception of 3K, had overall concordance rates greater than 0.940 and allelic R2 greater than 0.919. Ungenotyped animals were imputed to 50K panel with an average concordance rate of 0.950 by FImpute.ConclusionFImpute accuracy outperformed Beagle on both imputation to 50K and to 777K. Two-step outperformed one-step imputation for imputing to 777K. Ungenotyped animals that have four or more offspring can have their 50K genotypes accurately inferred using FImpute. All low density panels, except the 3K, can be used to impute to the 50K using FImpute or Beagle with high concordance rate and allelic R2.

BackgroundGenomic selection (GS) has played an important role in cattle breeding programs. However, genotyping prices are still a challenge for implementation of GS in beef cattle and there is still a lack of information about the use of low-density Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) chip panels for genomic predictions in breeds such as Brazilian Braford and Hereford. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of using imputed genotypes in the accuracy of genomic predictions for twenty economically important traits in Brazilian Braford and Hereford beef cattle. Various scenarios composed by different percentages of animals with imputed genotypes and different sizes of the training population were compared. De-regressed EBVs (estimated breeding values) were used as pseudo-phenotypes in a Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (GBLUP) model using two different mimicked panels derived from the 50 K (8 K and 15 K SNP panels), which were subsequently imputed to the 50 K panel. In addition, genomic prediction accuracies generated from a 777 K SNP (imputed from the 50 K SNP) were presented as another alternate scenario.ResultsThe accuracy of genomic breeding values averaged over the twenty traits ranged from 0.38 to 0.40 across the different scenarios. The average losses in expected genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) accuracy (accuracy obtained from the inverse of the mixed model equations) relative to the true 50 K genotypes ranged from −0.0007 to −0.0012 and from −0.0002 to −0.0005 when using the 50 K imputed from the 8 K or 15 K, respectively. When using the imputed 777 K panel the average losses in expected GEBV accuracy was −0.0021. The average gain in expected EBVs accuracy by including genomic information when compared to simple BLUP was between 0.02 and 0.03 across scenarios and traits.ConclusionsThe percentage of animals with imputed genotypes in the training population did not significantly influence the validation accuracy. However, the size of the training population played a major role in the accuracies of genomic predictions in this population. The losses in the expected accuracies of GEBV due to imputation of genotypes were lower when using the 50 K SNP chip panel imputed from the 15 K compared to the one imputed from the 8 K SNP chip panel.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12863-017-0475-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.