Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 13, 2026

Protocol for Assessing the Relative Effects of Environment and Genetics on Antler and Body Growth for a Long-lived Cervid
Published on: August 8, 2017
Effects of runs of homozygosity-based versus genomic relationship matrix-based future inbreeding penalties on genetic
C Maltecca1, J Jiang2, J B Cole3
1Department of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695; Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada; Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), University of Florence, 50144 Florence, Italy.
Abstract:
Managing inbreeding while maintaining genetic gain is a critical challenge in dairy cattle breeding programs. Current North American genetic evaluations adjust breeding values for expected future inbreeding using genomic relationship matrix (GRM) approaches, but runs of homozygosity (ROH)-based methods may offer advantages for detecting recent autozygosity. This study compared ROH-based versus GRM-based inbreeding penalties across 20 generations of simulated genomic selection. Using AlphaSimR (version 1.5.3 in R v 4.3.1), we simulated dairy cattle populations under 3 genetic scenarios: additive only, low nonadditive effects σD2σD2σA2σA2=0.10, where σD2 is the dominance variance and σA2 is the additive variance, inbreeding depression = 0.30 σG, where σG is the genetic SD, per 10% inbreeding delta [ΔF]), and high nonadditive effects σD2σD2σA2σA2=0.50, inbreeding depression = 1.20 σG per 10% ΔF). Each penalty method was tested at 3 intensities (0.5 ×, 1 ×, 2 × the inbreeding depression parameter) with 10 replicates per scenario-treatment combination. The GRM-based penalties achieved lower inbreeding accumulation than ROH-based penalties, with differences of 0.13 to 0.22 in genomic F at matched penalty intensities. However, this enhanced inbreeding control was associated with reduced genetic gain, with GRM-based selection achieving 0.6 to 1.7 genetic SD less gain than ROH-based selection. The GRM-based selection retained more additive variance (66%-107%) compared with ROH-based selection (63%-74%), with values exceeding 100% indicating partial recovery of variance depleted during burn-in. Dominance variance retention was also greater for GRM-based selection (105%-114% vs. 93%-98%), reflecting maintained heterozygosity. Interestingly, GRM-based selection accumulated more inbreeding depression than ROH-based approaches despite lower inbreeding levels, potentially reflecting more effective purging under the stronger directional selection maintained by ROH-based methods. Results illustrate trade-offs between inbreeding control and genetic gain, with optimal strategy depending on breeding program objectives and trait genetic architecture.
Related Concept Videos
Regression Toward the Mean
Mutation, Gene Flow, and Genetic Drift
Genetic Drift

