Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jul;138(4):432-441.
doi: 10.1111/jbg.12533. Epub 2020 Dec 29.

Avoiding preselection bias in subsequent single-step genomic BLUP evaluations of genomically preselected animals

Affiliations

Avoiding preselection bias in subsequent single-step genomic BLUP evaluations of genomically preselected animals

Ibrahim Jibrila et al. J Anim Breed Genet. 2021 Jul.

Abstract

In animal breeding, parents of the next generation are usually selected in multiple stages, and the initial stages of this selection are called preselection. Preselection reduces the information available for subsequent evaluation of preselected animals and this sometimes leads to bias. The objective of this study was to establish the minimum information required to subsequently evaluate genomically preselected animals without bias arising from preselection, with single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP). We simulated a nucleus of a breeding program in which a recent population of 15 generations was produced. In each generation, parents of the next generation were selected in a single-stage selection based on pedigree BLUP. However, in generation 15, 10% of male and 15% of female offspring were preselected on their genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). These GEBV were estimated using ssGBLUP, including the pedigree of all animals in generations 0-15, genotypes of all animals in generations 13-15 and phenotypes of all animals in generations 11-14. In subsequent ssGBLUP evaluation of these preselected animals, genotypes and phenotypes from various groups of animals were excluded one after another. We found that GEBV of the preselected animals were only estimated without preselection bias when genotypes and phenotypes of all animals in generations 13 and 14 and of the preselected animals were included in the subsequent evaluation. We also found that genotypes of the animals discarded at preselection only helped in reducing preselection bias in GEBV of their preselected sibs when genotypes of their parents were absent or excluded from the subsequent evaluation. We concluded that to prevent preselection bias in subsequent ssGBLUP evaluation of genomically preselected animals, information representative of the reference data used in the evaluation at preselection and genotypes and phenotypes of the preselected animals are needed in the subsequent evaluation.

Keywords: bias; genomic preselection; multi-stage selection; single-step genomic BLUP.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Aguilar, I. , Misztal, I. , Johnson, D. L. , Legarra, A. , Tsuruta, S. , & Lawlor, T. J. (2010). Hot topic: A unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. Journal of Dairy Science, 93, 743–752. 10.3168/jds.2009-2730 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Appel, L. J. , Strandberg, E. , Danell, B. , & Lundeheim, N. (1998). Adjusting for missing data due to culling before testing in genetic evaluations of swine. Journal of Animal Science, 76, 1794–1802. 10.2527/1998.7671794x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Árnason, T. , Albertsdóttir, E. , Fikse, W. F. , Eriksson, S. , & Sigurdsson, Á. (2012). Estimation of genetic parameters and response to selection for a continuous trait subject to culling before testing. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 129, 50–59. 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2011.00941.x - DOI - PubMed
    1. Christensen, O. F. (2012). Compatibility of pedigree‐based and marker‐based relationship matrices for single‐step genetic evaluation. Genetics Selection Evolution, 44, 1. 10.1186/1297-9686-44-37 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Christensen, O. F. , & Lund, M. S. (2010). Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genetics Selection Evolution, 42, 2. 10.1186/1297-9686-42-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed