-In this work, linear body measures were taken and production indices calculated for 100 Cuban Creole goats and 100 crossbred goats in order to aid in the characterization of animal genetic resources in Cuba. Low variation was found for all indices of the Creole goats, showing homogeneity between the groups of animals studied. Most of the functional indices are related to the milk biotype which is in agreement the possible origin of the breed from animals of the Iberian Peninsula and Canary Islands. The crossbreds were more varied, mostly due to undesigned disorganized crossing. These data may help in identifying a commercial niche for the breed and contribute to in situ conservation of the Cuban Creole goat.
p p , ( ) was 0.45 for h 2 = 0.10 and 0.59 for h 2 = 0.30]. In cases of the use of incorrect heritabilities in the evaluation model, the bias was correctly estimated in direction but not in magnitude.In the same way, the magnitudes of bias and of slope were underestimated in scenarios with environmental trends in data, except for cases in which contemporary groups were random and greatly shrunken. In general, accuracies were well estimated in all scenarios. The LR method is capable of checking bias and accuracy in all cases, if the evaluation model is reasonably correct or robust, and its estimations are more precise with more information (e.g., high heritability). If the model uses an incorrect heritability or a hidden trend exists in the data, it is still possible to estimate the direction and existence of bias and slope but not always their magnitudes.
Background Bias has been reported in genetic or genomic evaluations of several species. Common biases are systematic differences between averages of estimated and true breeding values, and their over- or under-dispersion. In addition, comparing accuracies of pedigree versus genomic predictions is a difficult task. This work proposes to analyse biases and accuracies in the genetic evaluation of milk yield in Manech Tête Rousse dairy sheep, over several years, by testing five models and using the estimators of the linear regression method. We tested models with and without genomic information [best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) and single-step genomic BLUP (SSGBLUP)] and using three strategies to handle missing pedigree [unknown parent groups (UPG), UPG with QP transformation in the matrix (EUPG) and metafounders (MF)]. Methods We compared estimated breeding values (EBV) of selected rams at birth with the EBV of the same rams obtained each year from the first daughters with phenotypes up to 2017. We compared within and across models. Finally, we compared EBV at birth of the rams with and without genomic information. Results Within models, bias and over-dispersion were small (bias: 0.20 to 0.40 genetic standard deviations; slope of the dispersion: 0.95 to 0.99) except for model SSGBLUP-EUPG that presented an important over-dispersion (0.87). The estimates of accuracies confirm that the addition of genomic information increases the accuracy of EBV in young rams. The smallest bias was observed with BLUP-MF and SSGBLUP-MF. When we estimated dispersion by comparing a model with no markers to models with markers, SSGBLUP-MF showed a value close to 1, indicating that there was no problem in dispersion, whereas SSGBLUP-EUPG and SSGBLUP-UPG showed a significant under-dispersion. Another important observation was the heterogeneous behaviour of the estimates over time, which suggests that a single check could be insufficient to make a good analysis of genetic/genomic evaluations. Conclusions The addition of genomic information increases the accuracy of EBV of young rams in Manech Tête Rousse. In this population that has missing pedigrees, the use of UPG and EUPG in SSGBLUP produced bias, whereas MF yielded unbiased estimates, and we recommend its use. We also recommend assessing biases and accuracies using multiple truncation points, since these statistics are subject to random variation across years.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.