Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 18, 2025

A Protocol for Using Gene Set Enrichment Analysis to Identify the Appropriate Animal Model for Translational Research
Published on: August 16, 2017
Effect of genomic selection and genotyping strategy on estimation of variance components in animal models using
Lei Wang1, Luc L Janss2, Per Madsen2
1Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. Lei.Wang@mbg.au.dk.
Background:
The traditional way to estimate variance components (VC) is based on the animal model using a pedigree-based relationship matrix (A) (A-AM). After genomic selection was introduced into breeding programs, it was anticipated that VC estimates from A-AM would be biased because the effect of selection based on genomic information is not captured. The single-step method (H-AM), which uses an H matrix as (co)variance matrix, can be used as an alternative to estimate VC. Here, we compared VC estimates from A-AM and H-AM and investigated the effect of genomic selection, genotyping strategy and genotyping proportion on the estimation of VC from the two methods, by analyzing a dataset from a commercial broiler line and a simulated dataset that mimicked the broiler population.
Results:
VC estimates from H-AM were severely overestimated with a high proportion of selective genotyping, and overestimation increased as proportion of genotyping increased in the analysis of both commercial and simulated data. This bias in H-AM estimates arises when selective genotyping is used to construct the H-matrix, regardless of whether selective genotyping is applied or not in the selection process. For simulated populations under genomic selection, estimates of genetic variance from A-AM were also significantly overestimated when the effect of genomic selection was strong. Our results suggest that VC estimates from H-AM under random genotyping have the expected values. Predicted breeding values from H-AM were inflated when VC estimates were biased, and inflation differed between genotyped and ungenotyped animals, which can lead to suboptimal selection decisions.
Conclusions:
We conclude that VC estimates from H-AM are biased with selective genotyping, but are close to expected values with random genotyping.VC estimates from A-AM in populations under genomic selection are also biased but to a much lesser degree. Therefore, we recommend the use of H-AM with random genotyping to estimate VC for populations under genomic selection. Our results indicate that it is still possible to use selective genotyping in selection, but then VC estimation should avoid the use of genotypes from one side only of the distribution of phenotypes. Hence, a dual genotyping strategy may be needed to address both selection and VC estimation.
More Related Videos
08:27Large-Scale Multi-Omics Genome-Wide Association Studies Mo-GWAS: Guidelines for Sample Preparation and Normalization
Published on: July 27, 2021
10:08Genetic Mapping of Thermotolerance Differences Between Species of Saccharomyces Yeast via Genome-Wide Reciprocal Hemizygosity Analysis
Published on: August 12, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Incomplete Dominance
Pedigree Analysis
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Individual and Population Analysis
Mechanistic Models: Compartment Models in Algorithms for Numerical Problem Solving
In individual population analyses, different algorithms are employed, such as Cauchy's method, which uses a...
Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion
Physiological models take a detailed approach by considering specific molecular processes. They can predict drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination changes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how drugs interact with the body.
Evolutionary Relationships through Genome Comparisons