The quality of the algorithm for proven and young with various sets of core animals in a multibreed sheep population1

The inverses of the pedigree and genomic relationship matrices (A, G) are required for single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP). While, inverting A is possible for millions of animals at a linear cost, inverting G has a cubic cost and feasible for at most 150,000 animals, using the current conventional algorithms. The algorithm for proven and young (APY) provides approximations of the regular ssGBLUP by splitting genotyped animals into core and noncore groups, with computational costs being cubic for core and linear for noncore animals. The data consisted of 9,406,096 animals in the pedigree, 6,243,753 weaning weight phenotypes, and 46,949 genotyped animals from 5 breeds, composites, and animals with missing breed information from New Zealand. Aiming to find a core sample for a multibreed sheep population that can provide evaluations similar to those from the regular ssGBLUP, different core types, and core sizes were studied. Core types random, composite, oldest, youngest, the most inbred animals in G (GINB), and in A (AINB) were studied in 5K, 10K, and 20K core sizes (K = 1,000). Romney core was studied in 5K and 10K, and Coopworth-Perendale core was studied in 5K. Correlation and regression coefficient (slope) between GEBV from the non-APY and the APY analyses, as indicators for consistency with non-APY and bias from non-APY, showed a large impact of APY on noncore and a small impact on nongenotyped animals. Breed-based 5K cores resulted in large bias from non-APY even for nongenotyped animals. Random and GINB at 20K core size resulted in the highest consistency with non-APY and the lowest bias from non-APY. However, GINB did not perform as well as Random at lower core sizes. The number of animals from a breed in the core sample was very important for the evaluation of that breed. We observed that cores without Texel or Highlander animals resulted in poor evaluations for those breeds. Solving the mixed model equations, within core type, the smallest core size, and within core size, Random core converged in the least number of iterations. However, APY per se did not necessarily reduce the solving time. Random cores performed the best, as they could give a good coverage on the generations and breeds, representative for the genotyped population. Core size 20K performed better than 5K and 10K, and the optimum core size was found to be 18.8K, according to the eigenvalue decomposition of G.