Analytical and statistical consideration on the use of the ISAG-ICAR-SNP bovine panel for parentage control, using the Illumina BeadChip technology: example on the German Holstein population.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Parentage control is moving from short tandem repeats- to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) systems. For SNP-based parentage control in cattle, the ISAG-ICAR Committee proposes a set of 100/200 SNPs but quality criteria are lacking. Regarding German Holstein-Friesian cattle with only a limited number of evaluated individuals, the exclusion probability is not well-defined. We propose a statistical procedure for excluding single SNPs from parentage control, based on case-by-case evaluation of the GenCall score, to minimize parentage exclusion, based on miscalled genotypes. Exclusion power of the ISAG-ICAR SNPs used for the German Holstein-Friesian population was adjusted based on the results of more than 25,000 individuals. RESULTS: Experimental data were derived from routine genomic selection analyses of the German Holstein-Friesian population using the Illumina BovineSNP50 v2 BeadChip (20,000 individuals) or the EuroG10K variant (7000 individuals). Averages and standard deviations of GenCall scores for the 200 SNPs of the ISAG-ICAR recommended panel were calculated and used to calculate the downward Z-value. Based on minor allelic frequencies in the Holstein-Friesian population, one minus exclusion probability was equal to 1.4×10⁻¹⁰ and 7.2×10⁻²⁶, with one and two parents, respectively. Two monomorphic SNPs from the 100-SNP ISAG-ICAR core-panel did not contribute. Simulation of 10,000 parentage control combinations, using the GenCall score data from both BeadChips, showed that with a Z-value greater than 3.66 only about 2.5% parentages were excluded, based on the ISAG-ICAR recommendations (core-panel: ≥ 90 SNPs for one, ≥ 85 SNPs for two parents). When applied to real data from 1750 single parentage assessments, the optimal threshold was determined to be Z = 5.0, with only 34 censored cases and reduction to four (0.2%) doubtful parentages. About 70 parentage exclusions due to weak genotype calls were avoided, whereas true exclusions (n = 34) were unaffected. CONCLUSIONS: Using SNPs for parentage evaluation provides a high exclusion power also for parent identification. SNPs with a low GenCall score show a high tendency towards intra-molecular secondary structures and substantially contribute to false exclusion of parentages. We propose a method that controls this error without excluding too many parent combinations from the evaluation.