Skip to main content
. 2016 Jun 29;48:48. doi: 10.1186/s12711-016-0227-8

Table 3.

Correlations between EBV from alternate core groups and EBV from the full single-step model for DanAvl Landrace

Scenario Cor all Cor genotyped PCG iterations Sparsity of (G-1-A22-1)
NormalGa 1 1 306 0.0 %
Random10b 0.995 0.977 377 80.1 %
Unrelated10c 0.982 0.954 492 79.9 %
Offspring10d 0.987 0.983 330 80.4 %
OffspringRandom10e 0.991 0.984 340 80.3 %
Random30b 0.997 0.996 346 48.4 %
Random50b 0.996 0.999 312 24.7 %
Old10f 0.944 0.936 463 80.1 %
Young10g 0.897 0.937 444 79.7 %
NormalAh 0.977 0.858 321

Correlations were calculated for all animals (Cor all) and genotyped animals (Cor genotyped)

Number of PCG iterations and sparsity of the matrix involved in the single step formula (G-1-A22-1)

All correlations were significantly different from each other (p < 0.05)

aNormalG is the usual single-step procedure without sparse approximations

bRandom10, Random30, Random50 are the sparse single-step, where a random subset of animals (10, 30, 50 %) were treated as core

cUnrelated10 is 10 % animals chosen as core by minimizing the degree of relatedness between core animals

dOffspring10 is 10 % animals chosen based on the number of genotyped offspring

eOffspringRandom10 is, for old animals (excluding last year of birth) 10 % animals chosen based on the number of genotyped offspring, whereas for young animals (last year of birth) 10 % of the animals were chosen at random

fOld10 is the sparse single-step, where the 10 % oldest animals were treated as core

gYoung10 is the sparse single-step, where the 10 % youngest animals were treated as core

hNormalA is where genotypes are ignored completely