Literature DB >> 15583044

Unexpected estimates of variance components with a true model containing genetic competition effects.

L D Van Vleck1, J P Cassady.   

Abstract

Simulation of a model containing genetic competition effects was initiated to determine how well REML could untangle variances due to direct and competition genetic effects and pen effects. A two-generation data set was generated with six unrelated males that were each mated to five unrelated females to produce 300 progeny, from which 30 females (one per mating in previous generation) were mated to six unrelated males to produce 300 more progeny. Progeny were randomly assigned, six per pen, to 50 pens per generation. Parameters were V(g), V(c), C(gc), V(p), and V(e), representing direct and competition genetic variance with covariance, and pen and residual variance. Eight statistical models were used to analyze each of 400 replicates of 16 sets of parameters. Both V(g) and V(e) were fixed at 16.0. Values of C(gc) were -2.0, -1.0, 0.1, 1.0, and 2.0. Values of V(c) were 1.0 and 4.0, and values of V(p) were 0.1, 1.0, and 10.0. With the full model, average estimates resembled true parameters, except that V(p) was consistently overestimated when small (0.1 and 1.0), which in turn slightly changed other estimates. The most unexpected result was overestimation of V(p) when V(c) and Cgc were ignored. Overestimation depended on V(c) and the number of competitors in common between records in a pen. Upward bias was somewhat greater when Cg(c) was positive than when it was negative. For example, with C(gc) = 2, V(c) = 4, and V(p) = 0.1, the mean estimate of V(p) was 20.4 when C(gc) and V(c) were dropped from the model and 15.3 when C(gc) = -2.0. When V(p) was ignored, estimates of both C(gc) and V(c) increased in proportion with V(p). Also V(g) increased more with greater V(p). Another unexpected result occurred when pen was considered fixed. Empirical sampling standard errors of estimates of C(gc) and V(c) were decreased generally by factors of 2 to 30. Based on these results, we conclude a high estimate of pen variance may indicate genetic competition effects are important, and ignoring either the pen or competition effects will bias estimates of other components.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15583044

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  9 in total

1.  Estimating indirect genetic effects: precision of estimates and optimum designs.

Authors:  Piter Bijma
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-08-16       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 2.  The quantitative genetics of indirect genetic effects: a selective review of modelling issues.

Authors:  P Bijma
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 3.821

3.  Estimation of indirect social genetic effects for skin lesion count in group-housed pigs by quantifying behavioral interactions1.

Authors:  Belcy K Angarita; Rodolfo J C Cantet; Kaitlin E Wurtz; Carly I O O’Malley; Janice M Siegford; Catherine W Ernst; Simon P Turner; Juan P Steibel
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  The contribution of social effects to heritable variation in finishing traits of domestic pigs (Sus scrofa).

Authors:  R Bergsma; E Kanis; E F Knol; P Bijma
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2008-02-01       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  A guide to using a multiple-matrix animal model to disentangle genetic and nongenetic causes of phenotypic variance.

Authors:  Caroline E Thomson; Isabel S Winney; Océane C Salles; Benoit Pujol
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-10-12       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Indirect genetic effects and housing conditions in relation to aggressive behaviour in pigs.

Authors:  Irene Camerlink; Simon P Turner; Piter Bijma; J Elizabeth Bolhuis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Full sib pens of pigs are not suitable to identify variance component of associative effect: a simulation study using Gibbs Sampling.

Authors:  Jiqiu Cheng; Steven Janssens; Nadine Buys
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2009-02-27       Impact factor: 2.797

8.  Indirect genetic effects contribute substantially to heritable variation in aggression-related traits in group-housed mink (Neovison vison).

Authors:  Setegn Worku Alemu; Piter Bijma; Steen Henrik Møller; Luc Janss; Peer Berg
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Selection for feed efficiency using the social effects animal model in growing Duroc pigs: evaluation by simulation.

Authors:  William Herrera-Cáceres; Juan Pablo Sánchez
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 4.297

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.