On the ability of the LR method to detect bias when there is pedigree misspecification and lack of connectedness

Abstract

Background: Cross-validation techniques in genetic evaluations encounter limitations due to the unobservable nature of breeding values and the challenge of validating estimated breeding values (EBVs) against pre-corrected phenotypes, challenges which the Linear Regression (LR) method addresses as an alternative. Furthermore, beef cattle genetic evaluation programs confront challenges with connectedness among herds and pedigree errors. The objective of this work was to evaluate the LR method's performance under pedigree errors and weak connectedness typical in beef cattle genetic evaluations, through simulation. Methods: We simulated a beef cattle population resembling the Argentinean Brangus, including a quantitative trait selected over six pseudo-generations with a heritability of 0.4. This study considered various scenarios, including: 25% and 40% pedigree errors (PE-25 and PE-40), weak and strong connectedness among herds (WCO and SCO, respectively), and a benchmark scenario (BEN) with complete pedigree and optimal herd connections. Results: Over six pseudo-generations of selection, genetic gain was simulated to be under- and over-estimated in PE-40 and WCO, respectively, contrary to the BEN scenario which was unbiased. In genetic evaluations with PE-25 and PE-40, true biases of − 0.13 and − 0.18 genetic standard deviations were simulated, respectively. In the BEN scenario, the LR method accurately estimated bias, however, in PE-25 and PE-40 scenarios, it overestimated biases by 0.17 and 0.25 genetic standard deviations, respectively. In herds facing WCO, significant true bias due to confounding environmental and genetic effects was simulated, and the corresponding LR statistic failed to accurately estimate the magnitude and direction of this bias. On average, true dispersion values were close to one for BEN, PE-40, SCO and WCO, showing no significant inflation or deflation, and the values were accurately estimated by LR. However, PE-25 exhibited inflation of EBVs and was slightly underestimated by LR. Accuracies and reliabilities showed good agreement between true and LR estimated values for the scenarios evaluated. Conclusions: The LR method demonstrated limitations in identifying biases induced by incomplete pedigrees, including scenarios with as much as 40% pedigree errors, or lack of connectedness, but it was effective in assessing dispersion, and population accuracies and reliabilities even in the challenging scenarios addressed.