4.2 Article

Estimation of breeding values for mean and dispersion, their variance and correlation using double hierarchical generalized linear models

期刊

GENETICS RESEARCH
卷 94, 期 6, 页码 307-317

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1017/S0016672312000766

关键词

-

资金

  1. RobustMilk project
  2. European Commission [KBBE-211708]
  3. Swedish Research Council FORMAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The possibility of breeding for uniform individuals by selecting animals expressing a small response to environment has been studied extensively in animal breeding. Bayesian methods for fitting models with genetic components in the residual variance have been developed for this purpose, but have limitations due to the computational demands. We use the hierarchical (h)-likelihood from the theory of double hierarchical generalized linear models (DHGLM) to derive an estimation algorithm that is computationally feasible for large datasets. Random effects for both the mean and residual variance parts of the model are estimated together with their variance/covariance components. An important feature of the algorithm is that it can fit a correlation between the random effects for mean and variance. An h-likelihood estimator is implemented in the R software and an iterative reweighted least square (IRWLS) approximation of the h-likelihood is implemented using ASReml. The difference in variance component estimates between the two implementations is investigated, as well as the potential bias of the methods, using simulations. IRWLS gives the same results as h-likelihood in simple cases with no severe indication of bias. For more complex cases, only IRWLS could be used, and bias did appear. The IRWLS is applied on the pig litter size data previously analysed by Sorensen & Waagepetersen (2003) using Bayesian methodology. The estimates we obtained by using IRWLS are similar to theirs, with the estimated correlation between the random genetic effects being -0.52 for IRWLS and -0.62 in Sorensen & Waagepetersen (2003).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据