Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Optimising bias and accuracy in genomic prediction of breeding values
Contributor(s): Gowane, G R (author); Lee, Sang Hong Clark, Sam  (author)orcid ; Moghaddar, Nasir  (author)orcid ; Al-Mamun, Hawlader A (author); van der Werf, Julius H J  (author)orcid 
Publication Date: 2018
Open Access: Yes
Handle Link:
Open Access Link:
Abstract: Reference populations used for genomic selection (GS) usually involve highly selected genotyped individuals which may result in biased prediction of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). Bias and accuracy of GEBV in animal breeding programs was explored for various prediction methods. The data was simulated to compare Best Linear Unbiased Prediction of breeding values using pedigree based relationships (PBLUP), genomic relationships for genotyped animals only (GBLUP) and a Single Step approach (SSGBLUP), where information on genotyped individuals was used to infer realised relationship among all available genotyped and non-genotyped individuals that were linked through pedigree. In the SSGBLUP, varying weights (α=0.95, 0.50) for the genomic relationship matrix (G) relative to the A-matrix weights (1-α) were applied to construct an H matrix. Different selection and mating designs with various heritabilities (h²) and QTL models were tested to compare the methods. Results showed that the accuracy of the GEBV prediction increased linearly with an increase in the number of animals selected for genotyping in the reference data. For a random mating design with no selection (RR), all prediction methods were unbiased. Prediction bias was evident in GBLUP, when a smaller proportion was more intensely selected for genotyping but bias was smaller when the proportion of selectively genotyped animals was 20% or higher. The SSGBLUP (α=0.95) showed more accuracy compared to GBLUP and there was less bias with selective genotyping. However, PBLUP and SSGBLUP did show some bias with selection and assortative mating, probably due to not fully accounting for allele frequency changes due to selection of QTL with larger effects. This bias was larger in SSGBLUP than in PBLUP, likely due to the G- and A-matrices not being coherently scaled with allele frequency changes. SSGBLUP required lower values of α to decrease bias and increase accuracy of GEBV with selection and positive assortative mating. Models with a higher h² were more accurate and less biased in the prediction, compared to those with a lower h². Results suggest that selective genotyping in a breeding programme can lead to significant bias in prediction of GEBV when only evaluating genotyped individuals. The SSGBLUP method can provide more accurate and less biased estimates but more attention needs to be paid to appropriate scaling of A and G matrices in selected populations.
Publication Type: Conference Publication
Conference Details: WCGALP 2018: 11th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Auckland, New Zealand, 11th - 16th February, 2018
Source of Publication: Proceedings of the World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, v.11, p. 1-6
Publisher: Massey University
Place of Publication: Palmerston North, New Zealand
Fields of Research (FoR) 2008: 070201 Animal Breeding
060412 Quantitative Genetics (incl. Disease and Trait Mapping Genetics)
060408 Genomics
Fields of Research (FoR) 2020: 300305 Animal reproduction and breeding
310506 Gene mapping
310509 Genomics
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2008: 830399 Livestock Raising not elsewhere classified
Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) 2020: 100407 Insects
Peer Reviewed: Yes
HERDC Category Description: E1 Refereed Scholarly Conference Publication
Publisher/associated links:
Appears in Collections:Conference Publication
School of Environmental and Rural Science

Files in This Item:
3 files
File Description SizeFormat 
openpublished/OptimisingLeeClarkMoghaddarVanDerWerf2018ConferencePublication.pdfPublished version227.78 kBAdobe PDF
Download Adobe
Show full item record

Page view(s)

checked on Mar 7, 2023


checked on Mar 7, 2023
Google Media

Google ScholarTM


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons