Accuracy of genomic prediction using different models and response variables in the Nordic Red cattle population. (26th April 2013)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gao, H.; Lund, M.S.; Zhang, Y.; Su, G.
• Is Part Of: Journal of animal breeding and genetics. Volume 130:Number 5(2013:Oct.)
• Page Start: 333
• Page End: 340
• Publication Date: 2013-04-26
• Subjects: Livestock -- Breeding -- Periodicals; Livestock -- Genetics -- Periodicals; 636.0820
• DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12039
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0931-2668

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" xml:lang="en" id="jbg12039-abs-0001"> <title>Summary</title> <p>Breeding animals can be accurately evaluated using appropriate genomic prediction models, based on marker data and phenotype information. In this study, direct genomic values (DGV) were estimated for 16 traits of Nordic Total Merit (NTM) Index in Nordic Red cattle population using three models and two different response variables. The three models were as follows: a linear mixed model (GBLUP), a Bayesian variable selection model similar to BayesA (BayesA*) and a Bayesian least absolute shrinkage and selection operator model (Bayesian Lasso). The response variables were deregressed proofs (DRP) and conventional estimated breeding values (EBV). The reliability of genomic predictions was measured on bulls in the validation data set as the squared correlation between DGV and DRP divided by the reliability of DRP. Using DRP as response variable, the reliabilities of DGV among the 16 traits ranged from 0.151 to 0.569 (average 0.317) for GBLUP, from 0.152 to 0.576 (average 0.318) for BayesA* and from 0.150 to 0.570 (average 0.320) for Bayesian Lasso. Using EBV as response variable, the reliabilities ranged from 0.159 to 0.580 (average 0.322) for GBLUP, from 0.157 to 0.578 (average 0.319) for BayesA* and from 0.159 to 0.582 (average 0.325) for Bayesian Lasso. In summary, Bayesian Lasso performed slightly better than the other two models, and EBV performed slightly better than DRP as response variable, with regard to prediction reliability of DGV. However, these differences were not statistically significant. Moreover, using EBV as response variable would result in problems with the scale of the resulting DGV and potential problem due to double counting.</p> </abstract>