Effect of subdivision of the Lacaune dairy sheep breed on the accuracy of genomic prediction.

Genomic selection was deployed in Lacaune dairy breed in 2015. Lacaune population split in 1972 into 2 breeding companies with associated flocks, and there have been very few exchanges of animals between the subpopulations, leading to divergence of the 2 subpopulations. In spite of that, there is a joint genomic prediction. The objective of this study is to understand how this structuring affects prediction accuracy. We analyzed all the data available from Lacaune breeding program for milk yield: around 6 million phenotypes, 2 million animals in the pedigree and more than 29,000 genotyped animals, including 3,434 and 2,868 AI rams for each company. To consider missing pedigree, we set up genetic groups using the theory of metafounders. First, we studied the pedigree and genomic structures of the 2 subpopulations calculating Fst, evolution of average pedigree relationships across time and principal components analysis of genomic relationships. In a second part, we compared the reliability between different scenarios: an evaluation with a single reference population (Alone), an evaluation with a joint reference population (Together) and an evaluation of one subpopulation based on the reference population of the other group (Indirect). The low Fst value (0.02) reveals that the 2 subpopulations are still genetically close. Nevertheless, a low and constant average relationship between the animals of the 2 subpopulations confirms the absence of recent connections between them. We can see with principal component analysis results that even if they are close, they diverge over time. Finally, we observe small gains in accuracy of Together versus Alone, in spite of whereas doubling the reference population size in Together. These gains vary across years and subpopulations: less than 0.08 (0.46 to 0.54; ratio of accuracy for the partial and whole evaluations-corresponding to the greatest change in this ratio for breeding company 1, observed for the cohort 2016) for one subpopulation and between 0.03 (0.55 to 0.58) and 0.17 (0.48 to 0.65) for the other. To conclude, the 2 subpopulations remain close enough genetically so that their combined evaluation is advantageous, even if only slightly.