Cargando…

A comparison of methods to calculate a total merit index using stochastic simulation

BACKGROUND: Modern dairy cattle breeding goals include several production and more and more functional traits. Estimated breeding values (EBV) that are combined in the total merit index usually come from single-trait models or from multivariate models for groups of traits. In most cases, a multivari...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pfeiffer, Christina, Fuerst-Waltl, Birgit, Schwarzenbacher, Hermann, Steininger, Franz, Fuerst, Christian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4416272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25934497
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-015-0118-4
_version_ 1782369207236689920
author Pfeiffer, Christina
Fuerst-Waltl, Birgit
Schwarzenbacher, Hermann
Steininger, Franz
Fuerst, Christian
author_facet Pfeiffer, Christina
Fuerst-Waltl, Birgit
Schwarzenbacher, Hermann
Steininger, Franz
Fuerst, Christian
author_sort Pfeiffer, Christina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Modern dairy cattle breeding goals include several production and more and more functional traits. Estimated breeding values (EBV) that are combined in the total merit index usually come from single-trait models or from multivariate models for groups of traits. In most cases, a multivariate animal model based on phenotypic data for all traits is not feasible and approximate methods based on selection index theory are applied to derive the total merit index. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare a full multitrait animal model with two approximate multitrait models and a selection index approach based on simulated data. METHODS: Three production and two functional traits were simulated to mimic the national Austrian Brown Swiss population. The reference method for derivation of the total merit index was a multitrait evaluation based on all phenotypic data. Two of the approximate methods were variations of an approximate multitrait model that used either yield deviations or de-regressed breeding values. The final method was an adaptation of the selection index method that is used in routine evaluations in Austria and Germany. Three scenarios with respect to residual covariances were set up: residual covariances were equal to zero, or half of or equal to the genetic covariances. RESULTS: Results of both approximate multitrait models were very close to those of the reference method, with rank correlations of 1. Both methods were nearly unbiased. Rank correlations for the selection index method showed good results when residual covariances were zero but correlations with the reference method decreased when residual covariances were large. Furthermore, EBV were biased when residual covariances were high. CONCLUSIONS: We applied an approximate multitrait two-step procedure to yield deviations and de-regressed breeding values, which led to nearly unbiased results. De-regressed breeding values gave even slightly better results. Our results confirmed that ignoring residual covariances when a selection index approach is applied leads to remarkable bias. This could be relevant in terms of selection accuracy. Our findings suggest that the approximate multitrait approach applied to de-regressed breeding values can be used in routine genetic evaluation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4416272
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44162722015-05-02 A comparison of methods to calculate a total merit index using stochastic simulation Pfeiffer, Christina Fuerst-Waltl, Birgit Schwarzenbacher, Hermann Steininger, Franz Fuerst, Christian Genet Sel Evol Research BACKGROUND: Modern dairy cattle breeding goals include several production and more and more functional traits. Estimated breeding values (EBV) that are combined in the total merit index usually come from single-trait models or from multivariate models for groups of traits. In most cases, a multivariate animal model based on phenotypic data for all traits is not feasible and approximate methods based on selection index theory are applied to derive the total merit index. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare a full multitrait animal model with two approximate multitrait models and a selection index approach based on simulated data. METHODS: Three production and two functional traits were simulated to mimic the national Austrian Brown Swiss population. The reference method for derivation of the total merit index was a multitrait evaluation based on all phenotypic data. Two of the approximate methods were variations of an approximate multitrait model that used either yield deviations or de-regressed breeding values. The final method was an adaptation of the selection index method that is used in routine evaluations in Austria and Germany. Three scenarios with respect to residual covariances were set up: residual covariances were equal to zero, or half of or equal to the genetic covariances. RESULTS: Results of both approximate multitrait models were very close to those of the reference method, with rank correlations of 1. Both methods were nearly unbiased. Rank correlations for the selection index method showed good results when residual covariances were zero but correlations with the reference method decreased when residual covariances were large. Furthermore, EBV were biased when residual covariances were high. CONCLUSIONS: We applied an approximate multitrait two-step procedure to yield deviations and de-regressed breeding values, which led to nearly unbiased results. De-regressed breeding values gave even slightly better results. Our results confirmed that ignoring residual covariances when a selection index approach is applied leads to remarkable bias. This could be relevant in terms of selection accuracy. Our findings suggest that the approximate multitrait approach applied to de-regressed breeding values can be used in routine genetic evaluation. BioMed Central 2015-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4416272/ /pubmed/25934497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-015-0118-4 Text en © Pfeiffer et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Pfeiffer, Christina
Fuerst-Waltl, Birgit
Schwarzenbacher, Hermann
Steininger, Franz
Fuerst, Christian
A comparison of methods to calculate a total merit index using stochastic simulation
title A comparison of methods to calculate a total merit index using stochastic simulation
title_full A comparison of methods to calculate a total merit index using stochastic simulation
title_fullStr A comparison of methods to calculate a total merit index using stochastic simulation
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of methods to calculate a total merit index using stochastic simulation
title_short A comparison of methods to calculate a total merit index using stochastic simulation
title_sort comparison of methods to calculate a total merit index using stochastic simulation
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4416272/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25934497
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-015-0118-4
work_keys_str_mv AT pfeifferchristina acomparisonofmethodstocalculateatotalmeritindexusingstochasticsimulation
AT fuerstwaltlbirgit acomparisonofmethodstocalculateatotalmeritindexusingstochasticsimulation
AT schwarzenbacherhermann acomparisonofmethodstocalculateatotalmeritindexusingstochasticsimulation
AT steiningerfranz acomparisonofmethodstocalculateatotalmeritindexusingstochasticsimulation
AT fuerstchristian acomparisonofmethodstocalculateatotalmeritindexusingstochasticsimulation
AT pfeifferchristina comparisonofmethodstocalculateatotalmeritindexusingstochasticsimulation
AT fuerstwaltlbirgit comparisonofmethodstocalculateatotalmeritindexusingstochasticsimulation
AT schwarzenbacherhermann comparisonofmethodstocalculateatotalmeritindexusingstochasticsimulation
AT steiningerfranz comparisonofmethodstocalculateatotalmeritindexusingstochasticsimulation
AT fuerstchristian comparisonofmethodstocalculateatotalmeritindexusingstochasticsimulation