Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem
dc.contributor.author | Aguilar, Ignacio![]() |
es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Fernandez, Eduardo N.![]() |
es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Blasco Mateu, Agustín![]() |
es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Ravagnolo, Olga![]() |
es_ES |
dc.contributor.author | Legarra, Andres![]() |
es_ES |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-07-21T03:31:43Z | |
dc.date.available | 2021-07-21T03:31:43Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-07 | es_ES |
dc.identifier.issn | 0931-2668 | es_ES |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10251/169651 | |
dc.description.abstract | [EN] Model-based accuracy, defined as the theoretical correlation between true and estimated breeding value, can be obtained for each individual as a function of its prediction error variance (PEV) and inbreeding coefficient F, in BLUP, GBLUP and SSGBLUP genetic evaluations. However, for computational convenience, inbreeding is often ignored in two places. First, in the computation of reliability = 1-PEV/(1 + F). Second, in the set-up, using Henderson's rules, of the inverse of the pedigree-based relationship matrix A. Both approximations have an effect in the computation of model-based accuracy and result in wrong values. In this work, first we present a reminder of the theory and extend it to SSGBLUP. Second, we quantify the error of ignoring inbreeding with real data in three scenarios: BLUP evaluation and SSGBLUP in Uruguayan dairy cattle, and BLUP evaluations in a line of rabbit closed for >40 generations with steady increase of inbreeding up to an average of 0.30. We show that ignoring inbreeding in the set-up of the A-inverse is equivalent to assume that non-inbred animals are actually inbred. This results in an increase of apparent PEV that is negligible for dairy cattle but considerable for rabbit. Ignoring inbreeding in reliability = 1-PEV/(1 + F) leads to underestimation of reliability for BLUP evaluations, and this underestimation is very large for rabbit. For SSGBLUP in dairy cattle, it leads to both underestimation and overestimation of reliability, both for genotyped and non-genotyped animals. We strongly recommend to include inbreeding both in the set-up of A-inverse and in the computation of reliability from PEVs. | es_ES |
dc.description.sponsorship | FEDER; INRA; Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora; European Unions' Horizon 2020 Research & Innovation Programme, Grant/Award Number: No772787 | es_ES |
dc.language | Inglés | es_ES |
dc.publisher | Blackwell Publishing | es_ES |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics | es_ES |
dc.rights | Reserva de todos los derechos | es_ES |
dc.subject.classification | PRODUCCION ANIMAL | es_ES |
dc.title | Effects of ignoring inbreeding in model-based accuracy for BLUP and SSGBLUP | es_ES |
dc.type | Artículo | es_ES |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/jbg.12470 | es_ES |
dc.relation.projectID | info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/EC/H2020/772787/EU/SMAll RuminanTs breeding for Efficiency and Resilience/ | es_ES |
dc.rights.accessRights | Abierto | es_ES |
dc.contributor.affiliation | Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Ciencia Animal - Departament de Ciència Animal | es_ES |
dc.description.bibliographicCitation | Aguilar, I.; Fernandez, EN.; Blasco Mateu, A.; Ravagnolo, O.; Legarra, A. (2020). Effects of ignoring inbreeding in model-based accuracy for BLUP and SSGBLUP. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics. 137(4):356-364. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbg.12470 | es_ES |
dc.description.accrualMethod | S | es_ES |
dc.relation.publisherversion | https://doi.org/10.1111/jbg.12470 | es_ES |
dc.description.upvformatpinicio | 356 | es_ES |
dc.description.upvformatpfin | 364 | es_ES |
dc.type.version | info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion | es_ES |
dc.description.volume | 137 | es_ES |
dc.description.issue | 4 | es_ES |
dc.identifier.pmid | 32080913 | es_ES |
dc.relation.pasarela | S\433527 | es_ES |
dc.contributor.funder | European Commission | es_ES |
dc.contributor.funder | European Regional Development Fund | es_ES |
dc.contributor.funder | Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora | es_ES |
dc.contributor.funder | Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Francia | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Bijma, P. (2012). Accuracies of estimated breeding values from ordinary genetic evaluations do not reflect the correlation between true and estimated breeding values in selected populations. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 129(5), 345-358. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0388.2012.00991.x | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Christensen, O. F., Madsen, P., Nielsen, B., Ostersen, T., & Su, G. (2012). Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs. Animal, 6(10), 1565-1571. doi:10.1017/s1751731112000742 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Colleau, J.-J., Palhière, I., Rodríguez-Ramilo, S. T., & Legarra, A. (2017). A fast indirect method to compute functions of genomic relationships concerning genotyped and ungenotyped individuals, for diversity management. Genetics Selection Evolution, 49(1). doi:10.1186/s12711-017-0363-9 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Edel, C., Pimentel, E. C. G., Erbe, M., Emmerling, R., & Götz, K.-U. (2019). Short communication: Calculating analytical reliabilities for single-step predictions. Journal of Dairy Science, 102(4), 3259-3265. doi:10.3168/jds.2018-15707 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Fernández, E. N., Sánchez, J. P., Martínez, R., Legarra, A., & Baselga, M. (2017). Role of inbreeding depression, non-inbred dominance deviations and random year-season effect in genetic trends for prolificacy in closed rabbit lines. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 134(6), 441-452. doi:10.1111/jbg.12284 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Golden, B. L., Brinks, J. S., & Bourdon, R. M. (1991). A performance programmed method for computing inbreeding coefficients from large data sets for use in mixed-model analyses. Journal of Animal Science, 69(9), 3564-3573. doi:10.2527/1991.6993564x | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Groeneveld E. Kovac M. &Wang T.(1990).PEST a general purpose BLUP package for multivariate prediction and estimation. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production Edinburgh 13 488–491. | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Henderson, C. R. (1975). Best Linear Unbiased Estimation and Prediction under a Selection Model. Biometrics, 31(2), 423. doi:10.2307/2529430 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Henderson, C. R. (1976). A Simple Method for Computing the Inverse of a Numerator Relationship Matrix Used in Prediction of Breeding Values. Biometrics, 32(1), 69. doi:10.2307/2529339 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Legarra, A., Aguilar, I., & Colleau, J. J. (2020). Short communication: Methods to compute genomic inbreeding for ungenotyped individuals. Journal of Dairy Science, 103(4), 3363-3367. doi:10.3168/jds.2019-17750 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Legarra, A., Aguilar, I., & Misztal, I. (2009). A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. Journal of Dairy Science, 92(9), 4656-4663. doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2061 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Legarra A. Lourenco D. A. L. &Vitezica Z. G.(2018).Bases for genomic prediction. Retrieved fromhttp://genoweb.toulouse.inra.fr/~alegarra/ | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Masuda, Y., Aguilar, I., Tsuruta, S., & Misztal, I. (2015). Technical note: Acceleration of sparse operations for average-information REML analyses with supernodal methods and sparse-storage refinements1,2. Journal of Animal Science, 93(10), 4670-4674. doi:10.2527/jas.2015-9395 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Matilainen, K., Strandén, I., Aamand, G. P., & Mäntysaari, E. A. (2018). Single step genomic evaluation for female fertility in Nordic Red dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 135(5), 337-348. doi:10.1111/jbg.12353 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Mehrabani-Yeganeh, H., Gibson, J. P., & Schaeffer, L. R. (2000). Including coefficients of inbreeding in BLUP evaluation and its effect on response to selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 117(3), 145-151. doi:10.1046/j.1439-0388.2000.00241.x | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Meyer, K. (2007). WOMBAT—A tool for mixed model analyses in quantitative genetics by restricted maximum likelihood (REML). Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B, 8(11), 815-821. doi:10.1631/jzus.2007.b0815 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Misztal, I., & Wiggans, G. R. (1988). Approximation of Prediction Error Variance in Large-Scale Animal Models. Journal of Dairy Science, 71, 27-32. doi:10.1016/s0022-0302(88)79976-2 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Mrode, R. A., & Thompson, R. (Eds.). (2005). Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values. doi:10.1079/9780851990002.0000 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Pryce, J. E., Gonzalez-Recio, O., Nieuwhof, G., Wales, W. J., Coffey, M. P., Hayes, B. J., & Goddard, M. E. (2015). Hot topic: Definition and implementation of a breeding value for feed efficiency in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science, 98(10), 7340-7350. doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9621 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Sargolzaei, M., Chesnais, J. P., & Schenkel, F. S. (2014). A new approach for efficient genotype imputation using information from relatives. BMC Genomics, 15(1), 478. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-15-478 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Strandén, I., Matilainen, K., Aamand, G. P., & Mäntysaari, E. A. (2017). Solving efficiently large single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction models. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 134(3), 264-274. doi:10.1111/jbg.12257 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Ten Napel J. Vandenplas J. Lidauer M. Stranden I. Taskinen M. Mäntysaari E. Veerkamp R. F.(2017).MiXBLUP user‐friendly software for large genetic evaluation systems–Manual V2. Retrived from:https://www.mixblup.eu/documents/Manual%20MiXBLUP%202.1_June%202017_V2.pdf | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Tier B. Schneeberger M. Hammond K. &Fuchs W. C.(1991).Determining the accuracy of estimated breeding values in multiple trait animal models. Proceedings of the 9th AAABG Conference 239–242 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Van Vleck, L. D. (1993). Variance of prediction error with mixed model equations when relationships are ignored. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 85(5), 545-549. doi:10.1007/bf00220912 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | VanRaden, P. M. (2008). Efficient Methods to Compute Genomic Predictions. Journal of Dairy Science, 91(11), 4414-4423. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0980 | es_ES |
dc.description.references | Xiang, T., Christensen, O. F., & Legarra, A. (2017). Technical note: Genomic evaluation for crossbred performance in a single-step approach with metafounders1. Journal of Animal Science, 95(4), 1472-1480. doi:10.2527/jas.2016.1155 | es_ES |