, Volume 136, Issue 2, pp 245–257 | Cite as

Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response

  • Mike Goddard


Genomic selection refers to the use of dense markers covering the whole genome to estimate the breeding value of selection candidates for a quantitative trait. This paper considers prediction of breeding value based on a linear combination of the markers. In this case the best estimate of each marker’s effect is the expectation of the effect conditional on the data. To calculate this requires a prior distribution of marker effects. If the marker effects are normally distributed with constant variance, BLUP can be used to calculate the estimated effects of the markers and hence the estimated breeding value (EBV). In this case the model is equivalent to a conventional animal model in which the relationship matrix among the animals is estimated from the markers instead of the pedigree. The accuracy of the EBV can approach 1.0 but a very large amount of data is required. An alternative model was investigated in which only some markers have non-zero effects and these effects follow a reflected exponential distribution. In this case the expected effect of a marker is a non-linear function of the data such that apparently small effects are regressed back almost to zero and consequently these markers can be deleted from the model. The accuracy in this case is considerably higher than when marker effects are normally distributed. If genomic selection is practiced for several generations the response declines in a manner that can be predicted from the marker allele frequencies. Genomic selection is likely to lead to a more rapid decline in the selection response than phenotypic selection unless new markers are continually added to the prediction of breeding value. A method to find the optimum index to maximise long term selection response is derived. This index varies the weight given to a marker according to its frequency such that markers where the favourable allele has low frequency receive more weight in the index.


Genomic selection Long term selection response Accuracy Equivalent model 



I acknowledge support from the Australian Research Council (grant DP0770096), and thank Bill Hill and a referee for helpful comments.


  1. Beavis WD (1994) QTL analysis: power, precision and accuracy. In: Paterson AH (ed) Molecular dissection of complex traits. CRC, Boca Raton, pp 145–162Google Scholar
  2. Boichard D, Fritz S, Rossignol MN, Guillaume F, Colleau JJ, Druet T (2006) Implementation of marker assisted selection: practical lessons from dairy cattle. 8th World congress on genetics applied to livestock production, August 13–18, 2006, Belo Horizonte, MG, BrasilGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouvenhuis H, Weller JI (1994) Mapping and analysis of dairy cattle quantitative trait loci by maximum likelihood methodology using milk protein genes as genetic markers. Genetics 137:267–280Google Scholar
  4. Bulmer MG (1971) The effect of selection on genetic variability. Am Nat 105:201–211. doi: 10.1086/282718 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chamberlain AJ, Bowman PJ, Meuwissen THE, McPartlan HM, Goddard ME (2007) Estimating the distribution of QTL effects for milk production traits in dairy cattle. Genetics (submitted)Google Scholar
  6. Dekkers JCM (2004) Commercial application of marker- and gene-assisted selection in livestock: strategies and lessons. J Anim Sci. 82 E-Suppl:E313–E328Google Scholar
  7. Dekkers JCM, van Arendonk JAM (1998) Optimizing selection for quantitative traits with information on an identified locus in outbred populations. Genet Res 71:257–275. doi: 10.1017/S0016672398003267 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eyre-Walker A, Keightley PD (2007) The distribution of fitness effects of new mutations. Nat Rev Genet 8:610–618. doi: 10.1038/nrg2146 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernando RL, Gianola D (1986) Optimal properties of the conditional mean as a selection criterion. Theor Appl Genet 72:822–825Google Scholar
  10. Franklin IR (1977) The distribution of the proportion of the genome which is homozygous by descent in inbred animals. Theor Popul Biol 11:60–80. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(77)90007-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goddard ME (1983) Selection indices for non-linear profit functions. Theor Appl Genet 64:339–344. doi: 10.1007/BF00274177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goddard ME, Hayes BJ (2007) Genomic selection. J Anim Breed Genet 124:323–330PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Goddard ME, Wiggans G (1999) Genetic improvement of dairy cattle. In: Fries R, Ruvinsky A (eds) Genetics of cattle. CAB International, Oxon, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. Grisart B, Coppieters W, Farnir F, Karim L, Ford C, Berzi P et al (2001) Positional candidate cloning of a QTL in dairy cattle: Identification of a missense mutation in the bovine DGAT1 gene with major effect on milk yield and composition. Genome Res 12:222–231. doi: 10.1101/gr.224202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM (2007) The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics 177:2389–2397PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) The distribution of the effects of genes affecting quantitative traits in livestock. Genet Sel Evol 33:209–229. doi: 10.1051/gse:2001117 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes BJ, Chamberlain A, Goddard ME (2006) Use of linkage markers in linkage disequilibrium with QTL in breeding programs. Proc 8th World Congr Genet Appl Livest Prod Belo Horizonte, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes BJ, Chamberlain AC, McPartlan H, McLeod I, Sethuraman L, Goddard ME (2007) Accuracy of marker assisted selection with single markers and marker haplotypes in cattle. Genet Res 89:215–220. doi: 10.1017/S0016672307008865 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill WG (l982) Predictions of response to artificial selection from new mutations. Genet Res 40:255–278Google Scholar
  20. Hill WG (1993) Variation in genetic composition in backcrossing programs. J Hered 84:212–213Google Scholar
  21. Hill WG, Robertson A (1966) The effects of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genet Res 8:269–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeon JT, Carlborg O, Torsten A, Giuffra E, Amarger V, Chardon P et al (1999) A paternally expressed QTL affecting skeletal and cardiac muscle in pigs maps to the IGF2 locus. Nat Genet 21:157–158. doi: 10.1038/5938 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lande R, Thompson R (1990) Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics 124:734–756Google Scholar
  24. Meuwissen THE, Goddard ME (1996) The use of marker haplotypes in animal breeding. Genet Sel Evol 28:161–176. doi: 10.1051/gse:19960203 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Meuwissen THE, Goddard ME (1999) Marker assisted estimation of breeding values when marker information is missing on many animals. Genet Sel Evol 31:375–394. doi: 10.1051/gse:19990405 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meuwissen THE, Sonesson A (2004) Genotype-assisted optimum contribution selection to maximise response over a specified time period. Genet Res 84:109–116. doi: 10.1017/S0016672304007050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819–1829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Moffatt MF, Kabesch M, Liang L, Dixon AL, Strachan D, Heath S et al (2007) Genetic variants regulating ORMDL3 expression contribute to the risk of childhood asthma. Nature 448:470–473. doi: 10.1038/nature06014 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Muir WM (2007) Comparison of genomic and traditional BLUP-estimated breeding value accuracy and selection response under alternative trait and genomic parameters. J Anim Breed Genet 124:342–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sanchez L, Caballero A, Santiago E (2006) Palliating the impact of fixation of a major gene on the genetic variation of artificially selected polygenes. Genet Res 88:105–118. doi: 10.1017/S0016672306008421 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schaeffer LR (2006) Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle. J Anim Breed Genet 123:218–223. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2006.00595.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stam P (1980) The distribution of the fraction of the genome identical by descent in finite random mating populations. Genet Res 35:131–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sved J (1971) Linkage disequilibrium and homozygosity of chromosome segments in finite populations. Theor Popul Biol 2:125–141. doi: 10.1016/0040-5809(71)90011-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the Lasso. J Roy Statist Soc Ser B Methodol 58:267–288Google Scholar
  35. Visscher PM, Medland SE, Ferreira MAR, Morley KI, Zhu G, Cornes B et al (2006) Assumption-free estimation of heritability from genome-wide indentity-by-descent sharing between full siblings. PLoS Genet 2:e41. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0020041 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wilson T, Wu XY, Juengel JL, Ross IK, Lumsden JM, Lord EA et al (2001) Highly prolific Booroola sheep have a mutation in the intracellular kinase domain of bone morphogenetic protein IB receptor (ALK-6) that is expressed in both oocytes and granulosa cells. Biol Reprod 64:1225–1235. doi: 10.1095/biolreprod64.4.1225 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wray NR, Goddard ME, Visscher PM (2007) Prediction of individual risk to disease from genome-wide association studies. Genome Res 17:1520–1528. doi: 10.1101/gr.6665407 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang X-S, Hill WG (2005) Predictions of patterns of response to artificial selection in lines derived from natural populations. Genetics 169:411–425. doi: 10.1534/genetics.104.032573 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Primary IndustriesUniversity of MelbourneVictoriaAustralia

Personalised recommendations