4.5 Article

Unknown-parent groups in single-step genomic evaluation

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS
Volume 130, Issue 4, Pages 252-258

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12025

Keywords

Bias; genomic evaluation; genomic relationships; unknown-parent groups

Funding

  1. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative from US Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2009-65205-05665, 2010-65205-20366]
  2. Holstein Association USA (Brattleboro, VT)
  3. BARD
  4. PIC (Hendersonville, TN)
  5. NIFA [581820, 2009-65205-05665, 581193, 2010-65205-20366] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In single-step genomic evaluation using best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP), genomic predictions are calculated with a relationship matrix that combines pedigree and genomic information. For missing pedigrees, unknown selection processes, or inclusion of several populations, a BLUP model can include unknown-parent groups (UPG) in the animal effect. For ssGBLUP, UPG equations also involve contributions from genomic relationships. When those contributions are ignored, UPG solutions and genetic predictions can be biased. Options to eliminate or reduce such bias are presented. First, mixed model equations can be modified to include contributions to UPG elements from genomic relationships (greater software complexity). Second, UPG can be implemented as separate effects (higher cost of computing and data processing). Third, contributions can be ignored when they are relatively small, but they may be small only after refinements to UPG definitions. Fourth, contributions may approximately cancel out when genomic and pedigree relationships are constructed for compatibility; however, different construction steps are required for unknown parents from the same or different populations. Finally, an additional polygenic effect that also includes UPG can be added to the model.

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