Bias and accuracy of dairy sheep evaluations using BLUP and SSGBLUP with metafounders and unknown parent groups.

Autor: Macedo FL; GenPhySE, INRAE, 31326, Castanet Tolosan, France. fernando.macedo@inrae.fr.; Facultad de Veterinaria, UdelaR, A. Lasplaces 1620, Montevideo, Uruguay. fernando.macedo@inrae.fr., Christensen OF; Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Blichers Allé 20, 8830, Tjele, Denmark., Astruc JM; Institut de l'Elevage, CS52627, 31326, Castanet Tolosan, France., Aguilar I; Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, Montevideo, Uruguay., Masuda Y; Department of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA., Legarra A; GenPhySE, INRAE, 31326, Castanet Tolosan, France.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE [Genet Sel Evol] 2020 Aug 12; Vol. 52 (1), pp. 47. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Aug 12.
DOI: 10.1186/s12711-020-00567-1
Abstrakt: Background: Bias has been reported in genetic or genomic evaluations of several species. Common biases are systematic differences between averages of estimated and true breeding values, and their over- or under-dispersion. In addition, comparing accuracies of pedigree versus genomic predictions is a difficult task. This work proposes to analyse biases and accuracies in the genetic evaluation of milk yield in Manech Tête Rousse dairy sheep, over several years, by testing five models and using the estimators of the linear regression method. We tested models with and without genomic information [best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) and single-step genomic BLUP (SSGBLUP)] and using three strategies to handle missing pedigree [unknown parent groups (UPG), UPG with QP transformation in the [Formula: see text] matrix (EUPG) and metafounders (MF)].
Methods: We compared estimated breeding values (EBV) of selected rams at birth with the EBV of the same rams obtained each year from the first daughters with phenotypes up to 2017. We compared within and across models. Finally, we compared EBV at birth of the rams with and without genomic information.
Results: Within models, bias and over-dispersion were small (bias: 0.20 to 0.40 genetic standard deviations; slope of the dispersion: 0.95 to 0.99) except for model SSGBLUP-EUPG that presented an important over-dispersion (0.87). The estimates of accuracies confirm that the addition of genomic information increases the accuracy of EBV in young rams. The smallest bias was observed with BLUP-MF and SSGBLUP-MF. When we estimated dispersion by comparing a model with no markers to models with markers, SSGBLUP-MF showed a value close to 1, indicating that there was no problem in dispersion, whereas SSGBLUP-EUPG and SSGBLUP-UPG showed a significant under-dispersion. Another important observation was the heterogeneous behaviour of the estimates over time, which suggests that a single check could be insufficient to make a good analysis of genetic/genomic evaluations.
Conclusions: The addition of genomic information increases the accuracy of EBV of young rams in Manech Tête Rousse. In this population that has missing pedigrees, the use of UPG and EUPG in SSGBLUP produced bias, whereas MF yielded unbiased estimates, and we recommend its use. We also recommend assessing biases and accuracies using multiple truncation points, since these statistics are subject to random variation across years.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: