Bias in variance component estimation in swine crossbreeding schemes using selective genotyping and phenotyping...

Selective genotyping of crossbred (CB) animals to include in traditionally purebred (PB) dominated genetic evaluations has been shown to provide an increase in the response to selection for CB performance. However, the inclusion of phenotypes from selectively genotyped CB animals, without the phenotypes of their non-genotyped cohorts, could cause bias in estimated variance components (VC) and subsequent estimated breeding values (EBV). The objective of the study was to determine the impact of selective CB genotyping on VC estimates and subsequent bias in EBV when non-genotyped CB animals are not included in genetic evaluations. A swine crossbreeding scheme producing 3-way CB animals was simulated to create selectively genotyped datasets. The breeding scheme consisted of three PB breeds each with 25 males and 450 females, F1 crosses with 1200 females and 12,000 CB progeny. Eighteen chromosomes each with 100 QTL and 4k SNP markers were simulated. Both PB and CB performances were considered to be moderately heritable (h2 = 0.4). Factors evaluated were as follows: 1) CB phenotype and genotype inclusion of 15% (n = 1800) or 35% (n = 4200), 2) genetic correlation between PB and CB performance (rpc = 0.1, 0.5, or 0.7), and 3) selective genotyping strategy. Genotyping strategies included the following: 1) Random: random CB selection, 2) Top: highest CB phenotype, and 3) Extreme: half highest and half lowest CB phenotypes. Top and Extreme selective genotyping strategies were considered by selecting animals in full-sib (FS) families or among the CB population (T). In each generation, 4320 PB selection candidates contributed phenotypic and genotypic records. Each scenario was replicated 15 times. VC were estimated for PB and CB performance utilizing bivariate models using pedigree relationships with dams of CB animals considered to be unknown. Estimated values of VC for PB performance were not statistically different from true values. Top selective genotyping strategies produced deflated estimates of phenotypic VC for CB performance compared to true values. When using estimated VC, Top_T and Extreme_T produced the most biased EBV, yet EBV of PB selection candidates for CB performance were most accurate when using Extreme_T. Results suggest that randomly selecting CB animals to genotype or selectively genotyping Top or Extreme CB animals within full-sib families can lead to accurate estimates of additive genetic VC for CB performance and unbiased EBV.