PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Lawrence R Schaeffer

Publications and source records attributed to Lawrence R Schaeffer.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Comparison between estimation of breeding values and fixed effects using Bayesian and empirical BLUP estimation under selection on parents and missing pedigree information.

Bayesian (via Gibbs sampling) and empirical BLUP (EBLUP) estimation of fixed effects and breeding values were compared by simulation. Combinations of two simulation models (with or without effect of contemporary group (CG)), three selection schemes (random, phenotypic and BLUP selection), two levels of heritability (0.20 and 0.50) and two levels of pedigree information (0% and 15% randomly missing) were considered. Populations consisted of 450 animals spread over six discrete generations. An infinitesimal additive genetic animal model was assumed while simulating data. EBLUP and Bayesian estimates of CG effects and breeding values were, in all situations, essentially the same with respect to Spearman's rank correlation between true and estimated values. Bias and mean square error (MSE) of EBLUP and Bayesian estimates of CG effects and breeding values showed the same pattern over the range of simulated scenarios. Methods were not biased by phenotypic and BLUP selection when pedigree information was complete, albeit MSE of estimated breeding values increased for situations where CG effects were present. Estimation of breeding values by Bayesian and EBLUP was similarly affected by joint effect of phenotypic or BLUP selection and randomly missing pedigree information. For both methods, bias and MSE of estimated breeding values and CG effects substantially increased across generations.

Alleles↗

Power of QTL detection by either fixed or random models in half-sib designs.

The aim of this study was to compare the variance component approach for QTL linkage mapping in half-sib designs to the simple regression method. Empirical power was determined by Monte Carlo simulation in granddaughter designs. The factors studied (base values in parentheses) included the number of sires (5) and sons per sire (80), ratio of QTL variance to total genetic variance (lambda= 0.1), marker spacing (10 cM), and QTL allele frequency (0.5). A single bi-allelic QTL and six equally spaced markers with six alleles each were simulated. Empirical power using the regression method was 0.80, 0.92 and 0.98 for 5, 10, and 20 sires, respectively, versus 0.88, 0.98 and 0.99 using the variance component method. Power was 0.74, 0.80, 0.93, and 0.95 using regression versus 0.77, 0.88, 0.94, and 0.97 using the variance component method for QTL variance ratios (lambda) of 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3, respectively. Power was 0.79, 0.85, 0.80 and 0.87 using regression versus 0.80, 0.86, 0.88, and 0.85 using the variance component method for QTL allele frequencies of 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, and 0.8, respectively. The log10 of type I error profiles were quite flat at close marker spacing (1 cM), confirming the inability to fine-map QTL by linkage analysis in half-sib designs. The variance component method showed slightly more potential than the regression method in QTL mapping.

Alleles↗