J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Duangjinda, M.
Right arrow Articles by Tsuruta, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Duangjinda, M.
Right arrow Articles by Tsuruta, S.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 79, Issue 12 2991-2996, Copyright © 2001 by American Society of Animal Science


JOURNAL ARTICLE

The empirical bias of estimates by restricted maximum likelihood, Bayesian method, and method R under selection for additive, maternal, and dominance models

M. Duangjinda, I. Misztal, J. K. Bertrand and S. Tsuruta
Animal and Dairy Science Department, University of Georgia, Athens 30602, USA.

Bayesian analysis via Gibbs sampling, restricted maximum likelihood (REML), and Method R were used to estimate variance components for several models of simulated data. Four simulated data sets that included direct genetic effects and different combinations of maternal, permanent environmental, and dominance effects were used. Parents were selected randomly, on phenotype across or within contemporary groups, or on BLUP of genetic value. Estimates by Bayesian analysis and REML were always empirically unbiased in large data sets. Estimates by Method R were biased only with phenotypic selection across contemporary groups; estimates of the additive variance were biased upward, and all the other estimates were biased downward. No empirical bias was observed for Method R under selection within contemporary groups or in data without contemporary group effects. The bias of Method R estimates in small data sets was evaluated using a simple direct additive model. Method R gave biased estimates in small data sets in all types of selection except BLUP. In populations where the selection is based on BLUP of genetic value or where phenotypic selection is practiced mostly within contemporary groups, estimates by Method R are likely to be unbiased. In this case, Method R is an alternative to single-trait REML and Bayesian analysis for analyses of large data sets when the other methods are too expensive to apply.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Crop Sci.Home page
H.-P. Piepho and J. Mohring
Selection in Cultivar Trials--Is It Ignorable?
Crop Sci., December 2, 2005; 46(1): 192 - 201.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J ANIM SCIHome page
R. J. Moser, A. Reverter, C. A. Kerr, K. J. Beh, and S. A. Lehnert
A mixed-model approach for the analysis of cDNA microarray gene expression data from extreme-performing pigs after infection with Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae
J Anim Sci, May 1, 2004; 82(5): 1261 - 1271.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Society of Animal Science.