Impact of Model Parameterisation and Variance Component Estimates on Genomic Predictions of Carcass Traits in Montana Composite Cattle

ABSTRACT
This study evaluated the influence of variance component (VC) estimates, obtained from different models and two relationship matrices, pedigree‐based (BLUP) and genomic information‐based (ssGBLUP), on genomic predictions of carcass traits in Montana composite cattle. Phenotypic records from 14,422 animals were analysed for ribeye area, rump fat thickness, backfat thickness and marbling, along with pedigree information from 193,129 animals and genomic data from 3911 animals genotyped with 49,457 SNPs. Variance components and heritability estimates were calculated using restricted maximum likelihood under single‐trait linear models. Across five models (M1–M5), fixed effects included contemporary group, embryo transfer, age at ultrasound and cow age at calving, while random effects included direct genetic effect and residual. From model M2 onwards, biological type, heterosis and both combined and specific recombination effects were also considered. The Akaike information criterion (AIC) was used to identify the best‐fitting model. Different VC estimates were applied in ssGBLUP predictions to evaluate predictive ability based on accuracy, bias and dispersion. Variance component and heritability estimates were similar between methods, although ssGBLUP yielded higher direct additive genetic variances and heritabilities. More parameterised models using ssGBLUP provided a better fit according to AIC. However, less parameterised models showed superior predictive ability, regardless of whether VCs were estimated by BLUP or ssGBLUP. When comparing predictive ability across sources, pedigree‐based VC estimates resulted in more accurate predictions. Thus, the choice of model complexity should be guided by the analysis objective and the available data structure.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

59

[1]

10.3168/jds.2009-2730

[2]

Aguilar I. I.Misztal S.Tsuruta A.Legarra andH.Wang.2014.“PREGSF90‐POSTGSF90: Computational Tools for the Implementation of Single‐Step Genomic Selection and Genome‐Wide Association With Ungenotyped Individuals in BLUPF90 Programs.”Em: 10 h World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production Vancouver.

[3]

Akaike H.1973.“Information Theory and an Extension of the Maximum Likelihood Principle.”Em: Proceeding of the Second International Symposium on Information Theory. 267–281.

[4]

Albuquerque L. G. G. A.Fernandes Júnior andR.Carvalheiro.2017.“Beef Cattle Genomic Selection in Tropical Environments.”In Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics v. 22 255–263.

[5]

10.1093/jas/skaa019

[6]

Arikawa L. M. "Genetic Parameter Estimates for Carcass and Meat Quality Traits and Their Genetic Associations With Sexual Precocity Indicator Traits in Nellore Cattle" Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics (2025)

[7]

10.1146/annurev.genet.41.110306.130301

[8]

10.1534/genetics.104.032821

[9]

10.2527/2005.83162x

[10]

Burnham K. P. (2002)

[11]

10.1111/jbg.12900

[12]

10.1186/1297-9686-42-2

[13]

10.1016/s0301-6226(03)00074-5

[14]

Dickerson G. E. "Experimental Approaches in Utilizing Breed Resources" Animal Breeding Abstracts (1969)

[15]

10.1093/tas/txab011

[16]

Falconer D. S. (1996)

[17]

Evolutionary trees from DNA sequences: A maximum likelihood approach

Joseph Felsenstein

Journal of Molecular Evolution 10.1007/bf01734359

[18]

Ferraz J. B. S. "A formação do composto Montana Tropical" Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal (1999)

[19]

10.1186/1297-9686-43-1

[20]

10.1186/s12864-019-6323-8

[21]

10.1038/nrg2575

[22]

10.2527/jas.2015-0134

[23]

10.1111/jbg.12420

[24]

10.3389/fgene.2020.00123

[25]

10.2307/2529430

[26]

10.1093/jas/skaa032

[27]

10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.28.1.437

[28]

10.1093/jas/skac057

[29]

10.1111/jbg.12235

[30]

10.1111/j.1439-0388.1980.tb00919.x

[31]

10.3389/fgene.2021.678587

[32]

10.1186/s12711-018-0426-6

[33]

10.1007/s13353-025-00959-3

[34]

Lourenco D. S.Tsuruta I.Aguilar et al.2022.Recent Updates in the BLUPF90 Software Suite. Em: 12th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production (WCGALP) 2022 1530–1533. 10.3920/978-90-8686-940-4_366

[35]

10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.09.010

[36]

10.3168/jds.2012-6523

[37]

10.4141/cjas2013-115

[38]

10.1093/jas/skaa101

[39]

Misztal I. (2014)

[40]

10.1186/1297-9686-46-17

[41]

10.1016/j.animal.2020.100160

[42]

10.4238/gmr19252

[43]

10.1007/s11250-023-03552-0

[44]

10.1071/an15458

[45]

10.2527/1997.7551203x

[46]

Sargolzaei M. H.Iwaisaki andJ. J.Colleau.2006.“CFC: A Tool for Monitoring Genetic Diversity.”Em: 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production 2006 Belo Horizonte MG Brasil 13–18.

[47]

Estimating the Dimension of a Model

Gideon Schwarz

The Annals of Statistics 10.1214/aos/1176344136

[48]

10.1515/sagmb-2013-0002

[49]

Variation in recombination frequency and distribution across eukaryotes: patterns and processes

Jessica Stapley, Philine G. D. Feulner, Susan E. Johnston et al.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:... 10.1098/rstb.2016.0455

[50]

10.2527/jas2017.1865

Showing 50 of 59 references

Metrics

1

Citations

59

References

Details

Published: Nov 24, 2025
Vol/Issue: 143(3)
Pages: 431-442
License: View

Authors

C

Caroline Assis Almeida