Study of using marker assisted selection on a beef cattle breeding program by model comparison

AbstractA data set of a commercial Nellore beef cattle selection program was used to compare breeding models that assumed or not markers effects to estimate the breeding values, when a reduced number of animals have phenotypic, genotypic and pedigree information available. This herd complete data set was composed of 83,404 animals measured for weaning weight (WW), post-weaning gain (PWG), scrotal circumference (SC) and muscle score (MS), corresponding to 116,652 animals in the relationship matrix. Single trait analyses were performed by MTDFREML software to estimate fixed and random effects solutions using this complete data. The additive effects estimated were assumed as the reference breeding values for those animals. The individual observed phenotype of each trait was adjusted for fixed and random effects solutions, except for direct additive effects. The adjusted phenotype composed of the additive and residual parts of observed phenotype was used as dependent variable for models' comparison. Among all measured animals of this herd, only 3160 animals were genotyped for 106 SNP markers. Three models were compared in terms of changes on animals' rank, global fit and predictive ability. Model 1 included only polygenic effects, model 2 included only markers effects and model 3 included both polygenic and markers effects. Bayesian inference via Markov chain Monte Carlo methods performed by TM software was used to analyze the data for model comparison. Two different priors were adopted for markers effects in models 2 and 3, the first prior assumed was a uniform distribution (U) and, as a second prior, was assumed that markers effects were distributed as normal (N). Higher rank correlation coefficients were observed for models 3_U and 3_N, indicating a greater similarity of these models animals' rank and the rank based on the reference breeding values. Model 3_N presented a better global fit, as demonstrated by its low DIC. The best models in terms of predictive ability were models 1 and 3_N. Differences due prior assumed to markers effects in models 2 and 3 could be attributed to the better ability of normal prior in handle with collinear effects. The models 2_U and 2_N presented the worst performance, indicating that this small set of markers should not be used to genetically evaluate animals with no data, since its predictive ability is restricted. In conclusion, model 3_N presented a slight superiority when a reduce number of animals have phenotypic, genotypic and pedigree information. It could be attributed to the variation retained by markers and polygenic effects assumed together and the normal prior assumed to markers effects, that deals better with the collinearity between markers