GWAS in practical cattle breeding in Czech Republic, single step method, genetic progress

Josef Přibyl, Jiří Bauer, Václav Čermák, Daniela Fulínová, Jiří Motyčka, Petr Pešek, Jana Přibylová, Jiří Šplíchal, Hana Vostrá Vydrová, Luboš Vostrý, Ludmila Zavadilová


Development of genetic evaluation of animals is permanent process. It was going from estimated breeding value (EBV) calculated by CC-test, across a BLUP – animal model and RR-TDM, to the genomic enhanced breeding value (GEBV) using genetic markers. Methods of genetic evaluation become a part of marketing strategies of insemination companies. Therefore all countries and association of breeders seek to be compatible with others. Now we are in a period of massive global implementation of genomic evaluation, which combines traditional BLUP with huge quantity of genetic SNP markers. Multi-step procedures are now usual in practice, which work with deregressed proofs. Development of methods attained to the single-step procedure (ssGBLUP) which overcomes some difficulties of previous methods, improves reliabilities of evaluation and compares all animals, genotyped and ungenotyped, in entire nation-wide population. Genomic evaluation influence above all young genotyped animals. In Czech Republic single-step procedure is routinely used for national evaluation of milk, linear type traits, reproduction and longevity. GEBVs are accompanied by genomic reliabilities. Genetic trends over last 20 years are in some traits different for genomic evaluation compared to traditional BLUP evaluation, although input data and genetic parameters (heritability) are the same and genotyped animals were only small proportion from entire evaluated population. Differences in genetic trends increase mainly in new batches of animals. Reason of it could be in the changed variability of breeding values and “genomic correction” of relationship between animals, which is expanded from genotyped animals to others individuals in a population.

 Keywords: genomic breeding value, single-step, genomic relationship, genetic trend, SNP



Bauer, J. et al. (2014) Approximation of the reliability of single-step genomic breeding values for dairy cattle in the Czech Republic. Anim. Sci. Papers and Reports, 32, pp. 301-306.

Bauer, J., Přibyl, J. and Vostrý, L. (2015) Contribution of domestic production records and Interbull EBV on approximate reliabilities of single-step genomic breeding values in dairy cattle. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 60, 263-267.

Candrák, J., Kadlečík O. and Schaeffer L.R. (1997) The use of test-day model for Slovak cattle populations. In: Proc. 48th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, Vienna, Austria, August 25–28.

Christensen,  O.F. and Lund, M.S. (2010) Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genet.Sel.Evol. 42, pp. 2.

Fisher, R.A. (1918) The correlation between relatives in the supposition of Mendelian

inheritance. Trans. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 52, pp. 399-433.

            Fragomeni, B.O. et al. (2015) Hot topic: Use of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) with a large number of genotypes. J. Dairy Sci., 98, pp. 4090-4094.

Gao, H. et al. (2012) Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population. Genet. Sel.Evol. 44, pp. 8.

Legarra A., Aguilar I. and Misztal, I. (2009) A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. J. Dairy Sci., 92, pp. 4656-4663.

Masuda, Y. et al. (2016) Implementation of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor for US Holsteins with a large number of genotyped animals. J. Dairy Sci., 99, pp. 1968-1974.

Mendel, G.J. (1866) Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden. Verh. Naturforsch. Ver. Brünn 4, pp. 3–47 (1901, J. R. Hortic. Soc. 26, pp. 1–32).

Meuwissen, T.H.E., Hayes, B.J. and Goddard, M.E. (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics, 157, pp. 1819–1829.

Misztal, I., Legarra A. and Aguilar, I. (2009) Computing procedures for genetic evaluation including phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information. J. Dairy Sci., 92, pp. 4648–4655.

Misztal, I. et al. (2013) Methods to approximate reliabilities in single-step genomic evaluation. J. Dairy Sci., 96, pp. 647-654.

Pešek, P., Přibyl, J. and Vostrý, L. (2015) Genetic variances of SNP loci for milk yield in dairy cattle. J. Appl. Genet., 56, pp. 339-347.

Přibyl, J. et al. (2014) Domestic and Interbull information in the single step genomic evaluation of Holstein milk production.  Czech J. Anim. Sci., 59, pp. 409-415.

Přibyl, J. et al. (2015) Domestic estimated breeding values and genomic enhanced breeding values of bulls in comparison with their foreign genomic enhanced breeding values. Animal, 9, pp. 1635-1642.

VanRaden, P.M. (2008) Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J. Dairy Sci., 91, pp. 4414–4423.

VanRaden, P.M. et al. (2011) Genomic evaluations with many more genotypes. Genet. Sel.Evol. 43, pp. 10.

Wright, S. (1921) Systems of mating. Genetics. 6, pp. 111-178.

Zavadilová, L. et al. (2014) Single-step genomic evaluation for linear type traits of Holstein cows in Czech Republic. Anim. Sci. Papers and Reports vol. 32, pp. 201-208.


Full Text:



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2016 Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica

© Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources