Abstract
Abstract
Background
The genetic correlation between purebred (PB) and crossbred (CB) performances ($${r}_{pc}$$
r
pc
) partially determines the response in CB when selection is on PB performance in the parental lines. An earlier study has derived expressions for an upper and lower bound of $${r}_{pc}$$
r
pc
, using the variance components of the parental purebred lines, including e.g. the additive genetic variance in the sire line for the trait expressed in one of the dam lines. How to estimate these variance components is not obvious, because animals from one parental line do not have phenotypes for the trait expressed in the other line. Thus, the aim of this study was to propose and compare three methods for approximating the required variance components. The first two methods are based on (co)variances of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) in the line of interest, either accounting for shrinkage (VCGEBV-S) or not (VCGEBV). The third method uses restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimates directly from univariate and bivariate analyses (VCREML) by ignoring that the variance components should refer to the line of interest, rather than to the line in which the trait is expressed. We validated these methods by comparing the resulting predicted bounds of $${r}_{pc}$$
r
pc
with the $${r}_{pc}$$
r
pc
estimated from PB and CB data for five traits in a three-way cross in pigs.
Results
With both VCGEBV and VCREML, the estimated $${r}_{pc}$$
r
pc
(plus or minus one standard error) was between the upper and lower bounds in 14 out of 15 cases. However, the range between the bounds was much smaller with VCREML (0.15–0.22) than with VCGEBV (0.44–0.57). With VCGEBV-S, the estimated $${r}_{pc}$$
r
pc
was between the upper and lower bounds in only six out of 15 cases, with the bounds ranging from 0.21 to 0.44.
Conclusions
We conclude that using REML estimates of variance components within and between parental lines to predict the bounds of $${r}_{pc}$$
r
pc
resulted in better predictions than methods based on GEBV. Thus, we recommend that the studies that estimate $${r}_{pc}$$
r
pc
with genotype data also report estimated genetic variance components within and between the parental lines.
Funder
Stichting voor de Technische Wetenschappen
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Genetics,Animal Science and Zoology,General Medicine,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference35 articles.
1. Dekkers JC. Marker-assisted selection for commercial crossbred performance. J Anim Sci. 2007;85:2104–14.
2. Wei M, van der Steen HAM, van der Werf JHJ, Brascamp EW. Relationship between purebred and crossbred parameters. J Anim Breed Genet. 1991;108:253–61.
3. Wientjes YCJ, Calus MPL. Board invited review: the purebred–crossbred correlation in pigs: a review of theory, estimates, and implications. J Anim Sci. 2017;95:3467–78.
4. Calus MPL, Bos JA, Duenk P, Wientjes YCJ. The purebred–crossbred correlation in broilers and layers: a review. In: Proceedings of the 71th annual meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science: 1–4 December 2020; virtual meeting 2020.
5. Falconer D, Mackay T. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited; 1996.