Effect of genomic selection and genotyping strategy on estimation of variance components in animal models using different relationship matrices

Table 3 Estimates of variance components (with SE in brackets) using the broiler data

Data	Model	\(\hat{\sigma }_{a}^{2}\)	\(\hat{\sigma }_{m}^{2}\)	\(\hat{\sigma }_{e}^{2}\)
All	A-AM	5007 (482.2)^*	1414.5 (104.5)	17,062 (249.1)^*
All	H-AM	12,498 (337.6)^*	1269.8 (755.5)	13,775 (144.7)^*
Males	A-AM	5208 (610.8)	1888.7 (152.7)	21,459 (329.5)^*
Males	H-AM	6606 (385.8)	1920.8 (120.6)	20,567 (217.0)^*
Females	A-AM	4653 (450.1)^*	1117.1 (96.4)^*	11,734 (233.1)^*
Females	H-AM	23,524 (297.4)^*	594.7 (56.3)^*	4485 (80.3)^*

\(\hat{\sigma }_{a}^{2}\): genetic variance
\(\hat{\sigma }_{m}^{2}\): variance of maternal permanent environmental effects
\(\hat{\sigma }_{e}^{2}\): residual variance
A-AM animal model with pedigree-based relationship matrix, H-AM animal model with combined pedigree-based and genomic relationship matrix
^*Significantly different comparing A-AM versus H-AM estimates within group All, Males or Females (P < 0.05)

ISSN: 1297-9686