Genetics Selection Evolution

Table 1 Regression coefficient of adjusted phenotype on estimated breeding values for backfat (BFT), carcass weight (CWT), eye-muscle area (EMA) and marbling (MAR) traits

From: Comparison of alternative approaches to single-trait genomic prediction using genotyped and non-genotyped Hanwoo beef cattle

Prediction methods	Trait
Prediction methods	BFT	CWT	EMA	MAR
SSBR-C (π estimation)	0.85	0.97	0.99	0.88
SSBR-B (π = chosen)^a	0.88	1.08	1.07	0.74
SSBR-C (π = chosen)^b	0.88	1.02	1.04	0.89
SSBR-C (π = 0)	0.86	1.21	1.00	0.87
BayesC (π estimation)	0.82	1.05	1.05	0.86
BayesB (π = chosen)^a	0.82	1.03	1.26	0.70
BayesC (π = chosen)^b	0.88	1.06	1.12	0.87
BayesC (π = 0)	0.86	1.20	1.09	0.88
SSGBLUP-I	0.73	1.15	0.97	0.79
SSGBLUP-II	0.54	0.84	0.75	0.64
SSGBLUP-III	0.52	0.90	0.79	0.61
PBLUP	0.76	1.12	1.02	0.93
PBLUP-G	0.61	1.33	1.30	0.92

^aChosen π of BayesB and SSBR-B for BFT, CWT, EMA and MAR were 0.95, 0.98, 0.95 and 0.6, respectively
^bChosen π of BayesC and SSBR-C for BFT, CWT, EMA and MAR were 0.98, 0.9999, 0.98 and 0.6, respectively

Back to article page

ISSN: 1297-9686

Contact us

Submission enquiries: gse@inrae.fr
General enquiries: info@biomedcentral.com