Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 58
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Neves, Haroldo HR Carvalheiro, Roberto and Queiroz, Sandra A 2012. A comparison of statistical methods for genomic selection in a mice population. BMC Genetics, Vol. 13, Issue. 1, p. 100.

    Christensen, Ole F Madsen, Per Nielsen, Bjarne and Su, Guosheng 2014. Genomic evaluation of both purebred and crossbred performances. Genetics Selection Evolution, Vol. 46, Issue. 1, p. 23.

    Misztal, I. Vitezica, Z.G. Legarra, A. Aguilar, I. and Swan, A.A. 2013. Unknown-parent groups in single-step genomic evaluation. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Vol. 130, Issue. 4, p. 252.

    Vandenplas, J. Christensen, O.F. and Gengler, N. 2014. Short communication: Alteration of priors for random effects in Gaussian linear mixed models. Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 97, Issue. 9, p. 5880.

    Winkelman, A.M. Johnson, D.L. and Harris, B.L. 2015. Application of genomic evaluation to dairy cattle in New Zealand. Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 98, Issue. 1, p. 659.

    Misztal, I. Legarra, A. and Aguilar, I. 2014. Using recursion to compute the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix. Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 97, Issue. 6, p. 3943.

    Misztal, I. Tsuruta, S. Aguilar, I. Legarra, A. VanRaden, P.M. and Lawlor, T.J. 2013. Methods to approximate reliabilities in single-step genomic evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 96, Issue. 1, p. 647.

    VanRaden, P.M. 2016. Practical implications for genetic modeling in the genomics era1. Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 99, Issue. 3, p. 2405.

    Ma, P. Lund, M.S. Nielsen, U.S. Aamand, G.P. and Su, G. 2015. Single-step genomic model improved reliability and reduced the bias of genomic predictions in Danish Jersey. Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 98, Issue. 12, p. 9026.

    Christensen, O. F. Madsen, P. Nielsen, B. Ostersen, T. and Su, G. 2012. Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs. animal, Vol. 6, Issue. 10, p. 1565.

    Bauer, J. Přibyl, J. and Vostrý, L. 2015. Short communication: Reliability of single-step genomic BLUP breeding values by multi-trait test-day model analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 98, Issue. 7, p. 4999.

    Legarra, A. and Ducrocq, V. 2012. Computational strategies for national integration of phenotypic, genomic, and pedigree data in a single-step best linear unbiased prediction. Journal of Dairy Science, Vol. 95, Issue. 8, p. 4629.

    Legarra, Andres Christensen, Ole F. Aguilar, Ignacio and Misztal, Ignacy 2014. Single Step, a general approach for genomic selection. Livestock Science, Vol. 166, p. 54.

    Christensen, Ole F 2012. Compatibility of pedigree-based and marker-based relationship matrices for single-step genetic evaluation. Genetics Selection Evolution, Vol. 44, Issue. 1, p. 37.

    Ødegård, Jørgen and Meuwissen, Theo HE 2014. Identity-by-descent genomic selection using selective and sparse genotyping. Genetics Selection Evolution, Vol. 46, Issue. 1, p. 3.

    Legarra, Andres 2016. Comparing estimates of genetic variance across different relationship models. Theoretical Population Biology, Vol. 107, p. 26.

    Lourenco, Daniela A. L. Fragomeni, Breno O. Tsuruta, Shogo Aguilar, Ignacio Zumbach, Birgit Hawken, Rachel J. Legarra, Andres and Misztal, Ignacy 2015. Accuracy of estimated breeding values with genomic information on males, females, or both: an example on broiler chicken. Genetics Selection Evolution, Vol. 47, Issue. 1,

    Fragomeni, B.O. Lourenco, D.A.L. Tsuruta, S. Masuda, Y. Aguilar, I. and Misztal, I. 2015. Use of genomic recursions and algorithm for proven and young animals for single-step genomic BLUP analyses - a simulation study. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Vol. 132, Issue. 5, p. 340.

    Yamazaki, Takeshi Togashi, Kenji Iwama, Satoru Matsumoto, Shigeo Moribe, Kimihiro Nakanishi, Takatoshi Hagiya, Koichi and Hayasaka, Kiyoshi 2014. Effects of a breeding scheme combined by genomic pre-selection and progeny testing on annual genetic gain in a dairy cattle population. Animal Science Journal, Vol. 85, Issue. 6, p. 639.

    Wang, H. Misztal, I. and Legarra, A. 2014. Differences between genomic-based and pedigree-based relationships in a chicken population, as a function of quality control and pedigree links among individuals. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, Vol. 131, Issue. 6, p. 445.


Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection

  • Z. G. VITEZICA (a1), I. AGUILAR (a2), I. MISZTAL (a3) and A. LEGARRA (a4)
  • DOI:
  • Published online: 18 July 2011

Prediction of genetic merit or disease risk using genetic marker information is becoming a common practice for selection of livestock and plant species. For the successful application of genome-wide marker-assisted selection (GWMAS), genomic predictions should be accurate and unbiased. The effect of selection on bias and accuracy of genomic predictions was studied in two simulated animal populations under weak or strong selection and with several heritabilities. Prediction of genetic values was by best-linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) using data either from relatives summarized in pseudodata for genotyped individuals (multiple-step method) or using all available data jointly (single-step method). The single-step method combined genomic- and pedigree-based relationship matrices. Predictions by the multiple-step method were biased. Predictions by a single-step method were less biased and more accurate but under strong selection were less accurate. When genomic relationships were shifted by a constant, the single-step method was unbiased and the most accurate. The value of that constant, which adjusts for non-random selection of genotyped individuals, can be derived analytically.

Corresponding author
*Corresponding author: UMR 1289 TANDEM, ENSAT, Avenue de l'Agrobiopole, Postal Box 32607, 31326 Auzeville Tolosane, France. E-mail:
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

I. Aguilar , I. Misztal , D. L. Johnson , A. Legarra , S. Tsuruta & T. J. Lawlor (2010). A unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 743752.

C. Y. Chen , I. Misztal , I. Aguilar , A. Legarra & W. M. Muir (2011). Effect of different genomic relationship matrices on accuracy and scale. Journal of Animal Science, in press.

O. F. Christensen & M. S. Lund (2010). Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped. Genetics Selection Evolution 42, 2.

C. C. Cockerham (1969). Variance of gene frequencies. Evolution 23, 7284.

C. C. Cockerham (1973). Analysis of gene frequencies. Genetics 74, 679700.

H. D. Daetwyler , R. Pong-Wong , B. Villanueva & J. A. Woolliams (2010). The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 185, 10211031.

R. Fernando & D. Gianola (1986). Optimal properties of the conditional mean as a selection criterion. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 72, 822825.

D. J. Garrick , J. F. Taylor & R. L. Fernando (2009). Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses. Genetics Selection Evolution 41, 55.

M. E. Goddard & B. J. Hayes (2009). Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes. Nature Reviews Genetics 10, 381391.

C. R. Henderson , O. Kempthorne , S. R. Searle & C. M. von Krosigk (1959). The estimation of environmental and genetic trends from records subject to culling. Biometrics 15, 192218.

C. R. Henderson & S. R. Searle (1981). On deriving the inverse of a sum of matrices. SIAM Review 23, 5360.

W. G. Hill (2010). Understanding and using quantitative genetic variation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365, 7385.

S. Im , R. L. Fernando & D. Gianola (1989). Likelihood inferences in animal breeding under selection: a missing-data theory viewpoint. Genetics Selection Evolution 21, 399414.

B. W. Kennedy , L. R. Schaeffer & D. A. Sorensen (1988). Genetic properties of animal models. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 1726.

A. Legarra , I. Aguilar & I. Misztal (2009). A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 46564663.

T. Luan , J. A. Woolliams , S. Lien , M. Kent , M. Svendsen & T. H. E. Meuwissen (2009). The accuracy of genomic selection in Norwegian red cattle assessed by cross-validation. Genetics 183, 11191126.

T. H. E. Meuwissen , B. J. Hayes & M. E. Goddard (2001). Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 18191829.

P. A. Oliehoek , J. J. Winding , J. A. M. van Arendonk & P. Bijma (2006). Estimating relatedness between individuals in general populations with a focus on their use in conservation programs. Genetics 173, 483496.

C. Patry & V. Ducrocq (2011). Evidence of biases in genetic evaluations due to genomic pre-selection in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 10111020.

J. E. Powell , P. M. Vissher & M. E. Goddard (2010). Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies. Nature Reviews Genetics 11, 800805.

R. L. Quaas (1988). Additive genetic models with groups and relationships. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 13381345.

M. Sargolzaei & F. Schenkel (2009). QMSim: a large-scale genome simulator for livestock. Bioinformatics 25, 680681.

T. R. Solberg , A. K. Sonesson , J. A. Woolliams & T. H. E. Meuwissen (2008). Genomic selection using different marker types and densities. Journal of Animal Science 86, 24472454.

D. A. Sorensen & B. W. Kennedy (1984). Estimation of response to selection using least squares and mixed model methodology. Journal of Animal Science 58, 10971103.

P. M. VanRaden (2008). Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 44144423.

P. M. VanRaden , C. P. Van Tassell , G. R. Wiggans , T. S. Sonstegard , R. D. Schnabel , J. F. Taylor & F. S. Schenkel (2009 a). Invited review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 1624.

P. M. VanRaden , M. E. Tooker & J. B. Cole (2009 b). Can you believe those genomic evaluations for young bulls? Journal of Dairy Science 92(E-Suppl. 1), 314 (Abstr.).

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Genetics Research
  • ISSN: 0016-6723
  • EISSN: 1469-5073
  • URL: /core/journals/genetics-research
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *