4.5 Article

Evaluation of a multi-line broiler chicken population using a single-step genomic evaluation procedure

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS
Volume 129, Issue 1, Pages 3-10

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2011.00939.x

Keywords

Allele frequencies; bias; chicken; genomic relationship matrix; genomic selection

Funding

  1. AFRI from the USDA NIFA [2009-65205-05665, 2010-65205-20366]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Effects on prediction of analysing a multi-line chicken population as one line were evaluated. Body weight records were provided by Cobb-Vantress for two lines of broiler chickens. Phenotypic records for 183 695 and 164 149 broilers and genotypic records for 3195 and 3001 broilers were available for each line. Lines were combined to create a multi-line population and analysed using a single-step procedure combining the additive relationship matrix and the genomic relationship matrix (G). G was scaled using allele frequencies from each line, the multi-line population, or 0.5. When allele frequencies were calculated from each line, distributions of diagonal elements were bimodal. When allele frequencies were calculated from the multi-line population, the distribution of diagonal elements had one peak. When allele frequency 0.5 was used, the distribution was bimodal. Genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) were predicted using each allele frequency. GEBVs differed with allele frequency but had =0.99 correlations with GEBVs predicted with correct allele frequencies. Means of each line and differences in mean between the lines differed based on allele frequencies. Assumed allele frequencies have little impact on ranking within line but larger impact on ranking across lines. G may be used to evaluate multiple populations simultaneously but must be adjusted to obtain properly scaled estimates when population structure is unknown.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available