Table 5.
Average accuracy of prediction of breeding values for log squared estimated residuals for a simulated trait*
| |
|
σ²Av,exp = 0.01 |
σ²Av,exp = 0.09 |
σ²Av,exp = 0.25 |
||||||
| Model |
rmv |
All |
Sire |
Dam |
All |
Sire |
Dam |
All |
Sire |
Dam |
| HOM |
−0.5 |
0.11 |
0.20 |
0.05 |
0.25 |
0.50 |
0.12 |
0.29 |
0.63 |
0.14 |
| (0.02) |
(0.02) |
(0.01) |
(0.01) |
(0.01) |
(0.00) |
(0.01) |
(0.01) |
(0.00) |
||
| HET |
−0.5 |
0.11 |
0.23 |
0.05 |
0.26 |
0.57 |
0.11 |
0.30 |
0.70 |
0.14 |
| (0.01) |
(0.02) |
(0.00) |
(0.01) |
(0.02) |
(0.00) |
(0.01) |
(0.02) |
(0.00) |
||
| HOM |
0 |
0.16 |
0.20 |
0.07 |
0.26 |
0.47 |
0.12 |
0.31 |
0.64 |
0.15 |
| (0.02) |
(0.02) |
(0.01) |
(0.02) |
(0.01) |
(0.01) |
(0.01) |
(0.02) |
(0.01) |
||
| HET |
0 |
0.13 |
0.22 |
0.06 |
0.27 |
0.55 |
0.12 |
0.31 |
0.71 |
0.15 |
| (0.01) |
(0.02) |
(0.01) |
(0.02) |
(0.01) |
(0.01) |
(0.01) |
(0.01) |
(0.01) |
||
| HOM |
0.5 |
0.12 |
0.21 |
0.05 |
0.22 |
0.44 |
0.10 |
0.30 |
0.63 |
0.15 |
| (0.02) |
(0.02) |
(0.01) |
(0.02) |
(0.02) |
(0.01) |
(0.01) |
(0.01) |
(0.00) |
||
| HET | 0.5 | 0.12 |
0.23 |
0.05 |
0.23 |
0.53 |
0.10 |
0.30 |
0.70 |
0.14 |
| (0.01) | (0.02) | (0.00) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.00) | (0.01) | (0.01) | (0.00) | ||
*Results given as mean (s.e.) of 20 replicates; accuracies were computed as Pearson’s correlations between estimated and true breeding values, by considering only the sires (sire), only the dams (dam) or all animals in the pedigree (all); results pertain to simulation using the observed pedigree structure; each scenario is characterized by the simulated values for additive genetic variance on residual variance (σ²Av,exp) and for the additive genetic correlation between the mean and the residual variance of the trait (rmv); homoscedastic (HOM) or heterogeneous residual variances among sire families (HET) were assumed in the model for the mean of the trait (first step of analyses).