Estimating the purebred-crossbred genetic correlation of body weight in broiler chickens with pedigree or genomic relationships

Micro-genetic environmental sensitivity across macro-environments of chickens reared in Burkina Faso and France

BACKGROUND

Commercial poultry production systems follow a pyramidal structure with a nucleus of purebred animals under controlled conditions at the top and crossbred animals under commercial production conditions at the bottom. Genetic correlations between the same phenotypes on nucleus and production animals can therefore be influenced by differences both in purebred-crossbred genotypes and in genotype-by-environment interactions across the two environments, known as macro-genetic environmental sensitivity (GES). Within each environment, genotype-by-environment interactions can also occur due to so-called micro-GES. Micro-GES causes heritable variation in phenotypes and decreases uniformity. In this study, genetic variances of body weight (BW) and of micro-GES of BW and the impacts of purebred-crossbred differences and macro-environmental differences on micro-GES of BW were estimated. The dataset contained three subpopulations of slow-growing broiler chickens: purebred chickens (PB) reared in France, and crossbred chickens reared in France (FR) under the same conditions as PB or reared in Burkina Faso (BF) under local conditions. The crossbred chickens were offspring of the same dam line and had PB as their sire line.

RESULTS

Estimates of heritability of BW and micro-GES of BW were 0.54 (SE of 0.02) and 0.06 (0.01), 0.67 (0.03) and 0.03 (0.01), and 0.68 (0.04) and 0.02 (0.01) for the BF, FR, and PB subpopulations, respectively. Estimates of the genetic correlations for BW between the three subpopulations were moderately positive (0.37 to 0.53) and those for micro-GES were weakly to moderately positive (0.01 to 0.44).

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that the heritability of the micro-GES of BW varies with macro-environment, which indicates that responses to selection are expected to differ between macro-environments. The weak to moderate positive genetic correlations between subpopulations indicate that both macro-environmental differences and purebred-crossbred differences can cause re-ranking of sires based on their estimated breeding values for micro-GES of BW. Thus, the sire that produces the most variable progeny in one macro-environment may not be the one that produces the most variable offspring in another. Similarly, the sire that produces the most variable purebred progeny may not produce the most variable crossbred progeny. The results highlight the need for investigating micro-GES for all subpopulations included in the selection scheme, to ensure optimal genetic gain in all subpopulations.

Animal board invited review: The purebred-crossbred genetic correlation in poultry

The purebred-crossbred genetic correlation (rpc) is a key parameter to determine whether the optimal selection of purebred animals to improve crossbred performance should rely on crossbred phenotypes, purebred phenotypes, or both. We reviewed published estimates of the rpc in poultry. In total, 19 studies were included, of which four were on broilers and 15 on laying hens, with 150 rpc estimates for nine different trait categories. Average reported rpc estimates were highest for egg weight, egg quality and egg colour (0.74-0.82), intermediate for BW, maturity and mortality (0.61-0.70) and egg number (0.58), and low for resilience (0.40) and body conformation (0.14). Most studies were based on measuring purebred and crossbred phenotypes in the same environment and thus did not capture the contribution of genotype by environment interactions to the rpc, suggesting that the presented average estimates may be higher than values that apply in practice. Nearly all studies were based on two-way crossbred animals. We hypothesised that rpc values for a two-way cross are good proxies for rpc of a four-way cross. Only eight out of 19 studies were published in the last 25 years, and only two of those used genomic data. We expect that more studies using genomic data may be published in the coming years, as the required data may be generated when implementing genomic selection for crossbred performance, which will lead to more accurate rpc estimates. Future studies that aim to estimate rpc are encouraged to capture the genotype by environment interaction component by housing purebred and crossbred animals differently as is done in practice. Moreover, there is a need for further studies that enable to explicitly estimate the magnitude of genotype by environment versus genotype by genotype interactions for multiple trait categories. Further, studies are advised to report: the specific housing conditions of the animals, any differences between measurements of purebred versus crossbred performance, and the heritabilities of purebred and crossbred performance.

Validation with single-step SNPBLUP shows that evaluations can continue using a single mean of genotyped individuals, even with multiple breeds

BACKGROUND

In genomic prediction, it is common to centre the genotypes of single nucleotide polymorphisms based on the allele frequencies in the current population, rather than those in the base generation. The mean breeding value of non-genotyped animals is conditional on the mean performance of genotyped relatives, but can be corrected by fitting the mean performance of genotyped individuals as a fixed regression. The associated covariate vector has been referred to as a 'J-factor', which if fitted as a fixed effect can improve the accuracy and dispersion bias of sire genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). To date, this has only been performed on populations with a single breed. Here, we investigated whether there was any benefit in fitting a separate J-factor for each breed in a three-way crossbred population, and in using pedigree-based expected or genome-based estimated breed fractions to define the J-factors.

RESULTS

For body weight at 7 days, dispersion bias decreased when fitting multiple J-factors, but only with a low proportion of genotyped individuals with selective genotyping. On average, the mean regression coefficients of validation records on those of GEBV increased with one J-factor compared to none, and further increased with multiple J-factors. However, for body weight at 35 days this was not observed. The accuracy of GEBV remained unchanged regardless of the J-factor method used. Differences between the J-factor methods were limited with correlations approaching 1 for the estimated covariate vector, the estimated coefficients of the regression on the J-factors, and the GEBV.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our results and in the particular design analysed here, i.e. all the animals with phenotype are of the same type of crossbreds, fitting a single J-factor should be sufficient, to reduce dispersion bias. Fitting multiple J-factors may reduce dispersion bias further but this depends on the trait and genotyping rate. For the crossbred population analysed, fitting multiple J-factors has no adverse consequences and if this is done, it does not matter if the breed fractions used are based on the pedigree-expectation or the genomic estimates. Finally, when GEBV are estimated from crossbred data, any observed bias can potentially be reduced by including a straightforward regression on actual breed proportions.

Predicting the impact of genotype-by-genotype interaction on the purebred-crossbred genetic correlation from phenotype and genotype marker data of parental lines

BACKGROUND

The genetic correlation between purebred (PB) and crossbred (CB) performances ([Formula: see text]) partially determines the response in CB when selection is on PB performance in the parental lines. An earlier study has derived expressions for an upper and lower bound of [Formula: see text], using the variance components of the parental purebred lines, including e.g. the additive genetic variance in the sire line for the trait expressed in one of the dam lines. How to estimate these variance components is not obvious, because animals from one parental line do not have phenotypes for the trait expressed in the other line. Thus, the aim of this study was to propose and compare three methods for approximating the required variance components. The first two methods are based on (co)variances of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) in the line of interest, either accounting for shrinkage (VC_GEBV-S) or not (VC_GEBV). The third method uses restricted maximum likelihood (REML) estimates directly from univariate and bivariate analyses (VC_REML) by ignoring that the variance components should refer to the line of interest, rather than to the line in which the trait is expressed. We validated these methods by comparing the resulting predicted bounds of [Formula: see text] with the [Formula: see text] estimated from PB and CB data for five traits in a three-way cross in pigs.

RESULTS

With both VC_GEBV and VC_REML, the estimated [Formula: see text] (plus or minus one standard error) was between the upper and lower bounds in 14 out of 15 cases. However, the range between the bounds was much smaller with VC_REML (0.15-0.22) than with VC_GEBV (0.44-0.57). With VC_GEBV-S, the estimated [Formula: see text] was between the upper and lower bounds in only six out of 15 cases, with the bounds ranging from 0.21 to 0.44.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that using REML estimates of variance components within and between parental lines to predict the bounds of [Formula: see text] resulted in better predictions than methods based on GEBV. Thus, we recommend that the studies that estimate [Formula: see text] with genotype data also report estimated genetic variance components within and between the parental lines.

Genotyping and phenotyping strategies for genetic improvement of meat quality and carcass composition in swine

Background

Meat quality and composition traits have become valuable in modern pork production; however, genetic improvement has been slow due to high phenotyping costs. Combining genomic information with multi-trait indirect selection based on cheaper indicator traits is an alternative for continued cost-effective genetic improvement.

Methods

Data from an ongoing breeding program were used in this study. Phenotypic and genomic information was collected on three-way crossbred and purebred Duroc animals belonging to 28 half-sib families. We applied different methods to assess the value of using purebred and crossbred information (both genomic and phenotypic) to predict expensive-to-record traits measured on crossbred individuals. Estimation of multi-trait variance components set the basis for comparing the different scenarios, together with a fourfold cross-validation approach to validate the phenotyping schemes under four genotyping strategies.

Results

The benefit of including genomic information for multi-trait prediction depended on the breeding goal trait, the indicator traits included, and the source of genomic information. While some traits benefitted significantly from genotyping crossbreds (e.g., loin intramuscular fat content, backfat depth, and belly weight), multi-trait prediction was advantageous for some traits even in the absence of genomic information (e.g., loin muscle weight, subjective color, and subjective firmness).

Conclusions

Our results show the value of using different sources of phenotypic and genomic information. For most of the traits studied, including crossbred genomic information was more beneficial than performing multi-trait prediction. Thus, we recommend including crossbred individuals in the reference population when these are phenotyped for the breeding objective.

Breed of origin of alleles and genomic predictions for crossbred dairy cows

BACKGROUND

In dairy cattle, genomic selection has been implemented successfully for purebred populations, but, to date, genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) for crossbred cows are rarely available, although they are valuable for rotational crossbreeding schemes that are promoted as efficient strategies. An attractive approach to provide GEBV for crossbreds is to use estimated marker effects from the genetic evaluation of purebreds. The effects of each marker allele in crossbreds can depend on the breed of origin of the allele (BOA), thus applying marker effects based on BOA could result in more accurate GEBV than applying only proportional contribution of the purebreds. Application of BOA models in rotational crossbreeding requires methods for detecting BOA, but the existing methods have not been developed for rotational crossbreeding. Therefore, the aims of this study were to develop and test methods for detecting BOA in a rotational crossbreeding system, and to investigate methods for calculating GEBV for crossbred cows using estimated marker effects from purebreds.

RESULTS

For detecting BOA in crossbred cows from rotational crossbreeding for which pedigree is recorded, we developed the AllOr method based on the comparison of haplotypes in overlapping windows. To calculate the GEBV of crossbred cows, two models were compared: a BOA model where marker effects estimated from purebreds are combined based on the detected BOA; and a breed proportion model where marker effects are combined based on estimated breed proportions. The methods were tested on simulated data that mimic the first four generations of rotational crossbreeding between Holstein, Jersey and Red Dairy Cattle. The AllOr method detected BOA correctly for 99.6% of the marker alleles across the four crossbred generations. The reliability of GEBV was higher with the BOA model than with the breed proportion model for the four generations of crossbreeding, with the largest difference observed in the first generation.

CONCLUSIONS

In rotational crossbreeding for which pedigree is recorded, BOA can be accurately detected using the AllOr method. Combining marker effects estimated from purebreds to predict the breeding value of crossbreds based on BOA is a promising approach to provide GEBV for crossbred dairy cows.

Review: optimizing genomic selection for crossbred performance by model improvement and data collection

Breeding programs aiming to improve the performance of crossbreds may benefit from genomic prediction of crossbred (CB) performance for purebred (PB) selection candidates. In this review, we compared genomic prediction strategies that differed in 1) the genomic prediction model used or 2) the data used in the reference population. We found 27 unique studies, two of which used deterministic simulation, 11 used stochastic simulation, and 14 real data. Differences in accuracy and response to selection between strategies depended on i) the value of the purebred crossbred genetic correlation (rpc), ii) the genetic distance between the parental lines, iii) the size of PB and CB reference populations, and iv) the relatedness of these reference populations to the selection candidates. In studies where a PB reference population was used, the use of a dominance model yielded accuracies that were equal to or higher than those of additive models. When rpc was lower than ~0.8, and was caused mainly by G × E, it was beneficial to create a reference population of PB animals that are tested in a CB environment. In general, the benefit of collecting CB information increased with decreasing rpc. For a given rpc, the benefit of collecting CB information increased with increasing size of the reference populations. Collecting CB information was not beneficial when rpc was higher than ~0.9, especially when the reference populations were small. Collecting only phenotypes of CB animals may slightly improve accuracy and response to selection, but requires that the pedigree is known. It is, therefore, advisable to genotype these CB animals as well. Finally, considering the breed-origin of alleles allows for modeling breed-specific effects in the CB, but this did not always lead to higher accuracies. Our review shows that the differences in accuracy and response to selection between strategies depend on several factors. One of the most important factors is rpc, and we, therefore, recommend to obtain accurate estimates of rpc of all breeding goal traits. Furthermore, knowledge about the importance of components of rpc (i.e., dominance, epistasis, and G × E) can help breeders to decide which model to use, and whether to collect data on animals in a CB environment. Future research should focus on the development of a tool that predicts accuracy and response to selection from scenario specific parameters.

Predicting the purebred-crossbred genetic correlation from the genetic variance components in the parental lines

Background

The genetic correlation between purebred and crossbred performance (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc) is an important parameter in pig and poultry breeding, because response to selection in crossbred performance depends on the value of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc when selection is based on purebred (PB) performance. The value of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc can be substantially lower than 1, which is partly due to differences in allele frequencies between parental lines when non-additive genetic effects are present. This relationship between \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc and parental allele frequencies suggests that \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc can be expressed as a function of genetic parameters for the trait in the parental lines. In this study, we derived expressions for \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc based on genetic variances within, and the genetic covariance between parental lines. It is important to note that the variance components used in our expressions are not the components that are typically estimated in empirical data. The expressions were derived for a genetic model with additive and dominance effects (D), and additive and epistatic additive-by-additive effects (E_AA). We validated our expressions using simulations of purebred parental lines and their crosses, where the parental lines were either selected or not. Finally, using these simulations, we investigated the value of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc for genetic models with both dominance and epistasis or with other types of epistasis, for which expressions could not be derived.

Results

Our simulations show that when non-additive effects are present, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc decreases with increasing differences in allele frequencies between the parental lines. Genetic models that involve dominance result in lower values of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc than genetic models that involve epistasis only. Using information of parental lines only, our expressions provide exact estimates of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc for models D and E_AA, and accurate upper and lower bounds of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc for two other genetic models.

Conclusion

This work lays the foundation to enable estimation of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${r}_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc from information collected in PB parental lines only.

Genetic parameters and purebred-crossbred genetic correlations for growth, meat quality, and carcass traits in pigs

Growth, meat quality, and carcass traits are of economic importance in swine breeding. Understanding their genetic basis in purebred (PB) and commercial crossbred (CB) pigs is necessary for a successful breeding program because, although the breeding goal is to improve CB performance, phenotype collection and selection are usually carried out in PB populations housed in biosecure nucleus herds. Thus, the selection is indirect, and the accuracy of selection depends on the genetic correlation between PB and CB performance (rpc). The objectives of this study were to 1) estimate genetic parameters for growth, meat quality, and carcass traits in a PB sire line and related commercial CB pigs and 2) estimate the corresponding genetic correlations between purebred and crossbred performance (rpc). Both objectives were investigated by using pedigree information only (PBLUP) and by combining pedigree and genomic information in a single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) procedure. Growth rate showed moderate estimates of heritability for both PB and CB based on PBLUP, while estimates were higher in CB based on ssGBLUP. Heritability estimates for meat quality traits were diverse and slightly different based on PB and CB data with both methods. Carcass traits had higher heritability estimates based on PB compared with CB data based on PBLUP and slightly higher estimates for CB data based on ssGBLUP. A wide range of estimates of genetic correlations were obtained among traits within the PB and CB data. In the PB population, estimates of heritabilities and genetic correlations were similar based on PBLUP and ssGBLUP for all traits, while based on the CB data, ssGBLUP resulted in different estimates of genetic parameters with lower SEs. With some exceptions, estimates of rpc were moderate to high. The SE on the rpc estimates was generally large when based on PBLUP due to limited sample size, especially for CBs. In contrast, estimates of rpc based on ssGBLUP were not only more precise but also more consistent among pairs of traits, considering their genetic correlations within the PB and CB data. The wide range of estimates of rpc (less than 0.70 for 7 out of 13 traits) indicates that the use of CB phenotypes recorded on commercial farms, along with genomic information, for selection in the PB population has potential to increase the genetic progress of CB performance.

A Review of Genomic Models for the Analysis of Livestock Crossbred Data

Livestock breeding has shifted during the past decade toward genomic selection. For the estimation of breeding values in purebred breeding schemes, genomic best linear unbiased prediction has become the method of choice. Systematic crossbreeding with the aim to utilize heterosis and breed complementary effects is widely used in livestock breeding, especially in pig and poultry breeding. The goal is to improve the performance of the crossbred animals. Due to genotype-by-environment interactions, imperfect linkage disequilibrium, and the existence of dominance and imprinting, purebred and crossbred performances are not perfectly correlated. Hence, more complex genomic models are required for crossbred populations. This study reviews and compares such models. Compared to purebred genomic models, the reviewed models were of much higher complexity due to the inclusion of dominance effects, breed-specific effects, imprinting effects, and the joint evaluation of purebred and crossbred performance data. With the model assessment work conducted until now, it is not possible to come to a clear recommendation as to which existing method is most suitable for a specific breeding program and a specific genetic trait architecture. Since it is expected that a superior method includes all the different genetic effects in a single model, a dominance model with imprinting and breed-specific SNP effects is proposed. Further progress could be made by assuming realistic covariance structures between the genetic effects of the different breeding lines, and by using larger marker panels and mixture distributions for the SNP effects.

Assessment of sire contribution and breed-of-origin of alleles in a three-way crossbred broiler dataset

Broiler breeding programs rely on crossbreeding. With genomic selection, widespread use of crossbred performance in breeding programs comes within reach. Commercial crossbreds, however, may have unknown pedigrees and their genomes may include DNA from 2 to 4 different breeds. Our aim was, for a broiler dataset with a limited number of sires having both purebred and crossbred offspring generated using natural mating, to rapidly derive parentage, assess the distribution of the sire contribution to the offspring generation, and to assess breed-of-origin of alleles in crossbreds. The dataset contained genotypes for 56,075 SNPs for 5,882 purebred and 10,943 3-way crossbred offspring generated by natural mating of 164 purebred sires to 1,016 purebred and 1,386 F1 crossbred hens. Using our algorithm FindParents, joint parentage derivation for the offspring and parent generations required only 1 m 29 s to retrieve parentage for 20,253 animals considering 4,504 possible parents. FindParents was similarly accurate as a maximum likelihood based method, apart from situations where settings of FindParents did not match the genotyping error rate in the data. Numbers of offspring per sire had a very skewed distribution, ranging from 1 to 270 crossbreds and 1 to 154 purebreds. Derivation of breed-of-origin of alleles relied on phasing all genotypes, including 8,205, 372, and 720 animals from the 3 pure lines involved, and allocating haplotypes in the crossbreds to purebred lines based on observed frequencies in the purebred lines. Breed-of-origin could be derived for 96.94% of the alleles of the 1,386 F1 crossbred hens and for 91.88% of the alleles of the 10,943 3-way crossbred offspring, of which 49.49% to the sire line. The achieved percentage of assignment to the sire line was sufficient to proceed with subsequent analyses requiring only the breed-of-origin of the paternal alleles to be known. Although required number of animals may be population dependent, to increase the total percentage of assigned alleles, it seems advisable to use at least approx. 1,000 genotyped purebred animals for each of the lines involved.

Validation of genomic predictions for body weight in broilers using crossbred information and considering breed-of-origin of alleles

Background

Pig and poultry breeding programs aim at improving crossbred (CB) performance. Selection response may be suboptimal if only purebred (PB) performance is used to compute genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) because the genetic correlation between PB and CB performance (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc) is often lower than 1. Thus, it may be beneficial to use information on both PB and CB performance. In addition, the accuracy of GEBV of PB animals for CB performance may improve when the breed-of-origin of alleles (BOA) is considered in the genomic relationship matrix (GRM). Thus, our aim was to compare scenarios where GEBV are computed and validated by using (1) either CB offspring averages or individual CB records for validation, (2) either a PB or CB reference population, and (3) a GRM that either accounts for or ignores BOA in the CB individuals. For this purpose, we used data on body weight measured at around 7 (BW7) or 35 (BW35) days in PB and CB broiler chickens and evaluated the accuracy of GEBV based on the correlation GEBV with phenotypes in the validation population (validation correlation).

Results

With validation on CB offspring averages, the validation correlation of GEBV of PB animals for CB performance was lower with a CB reference population than with a PB reference population for BW35 (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc = 0.96), and about equal for BW7 (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc = 0.80) when BOA was ignored. However, with validation on individual CB records, the validation correlation was higher with a CB reference population for both traits. The use of a GRM that took BOA into account increased the validation correlation for BW7 but reduced it for BW35.

Conclusions

We argue that the benefit of using a CB reference population for genomic prediction of PB animals for CB performance should be assessed either by validation on CB offspring averages, or by validation on individual CB records while using a GRM that accounts for BOA in the CB individuals. With this recommendation in mind, our results show that the accuracy of GEBV of PB animals for CB performance was equal to or higher with a CB reference population than with a PB reference population for a trait with an \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc of 0.8, but lower for a trait with an \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc of 0.96. In addition, taking BOA into account was beneficial for a trait with an \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc of 0.8 but not for a trait with an \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$r_{pc}$$\end{document}rpc of 0.96.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12711-019-0481-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.