Compares inbreeding penalties on genetic gain and variance in dairy cattle, suggesting trade-offs.
Managing inbreeding while maintaining genetic gain is a critical challenge in dairy cattle breeding programs.Current North American genetic evaluations adjust breeding values for expected future inbreeding using genomic relationship matrix (GRM) approaches, but runs of homozygosity (ROH)-based methods may offer advantages for detecting recent autozygosity.This study compared ROH-based versus GRM-based inbreeding penalties across 20 generations of simulated genomic selection.Using AlphaSimR, we simulated dairy cattle populations under 3 genetic scenarios: additive only, low non-additive effects ( 2 D/ 2 A = 0.10, inbreeding depression = 0.30G per 10% F), and high non-additive effects ( 2 D/ 2 A = 0.50, inbreeding depression = 1.20G per 10% F).Each penalty method was tested at 3 intensities (0.5 , 1 , 2 the inbreeding depression parameter) with 10 replicates per scenario-treatment combination.GRM-based penalties achieved lower inbreeding accumulation than ROH-based penalties, with differences of 0.13 to 0.22 in genomic F at matched penalty intensities.However, this enhanced inbreeding control was associated with reduced genetic gain, with GRM-based selection achieving 0.6 to 1.7 genetic standard deviations less gain than ROH-based selection.GRM-based selection retained more additive variance (66-107%) compared with ROHbased selection (63-74%), with values exceeding 100% indicating partial recovery of variance depleted during burn-in.Dominance variance retention was also greater for GRM-based selection (105-114% vs. 93-98%), reflecting maintained heterozygosity.Interestingly, GRMbased selection accumulated more inbreeding depression than ROH-based approaches despite lower inbreeding levels, potentially reflecting more effective purging under the stronger directional selection maintained by ROH-based methods.Results illustrate trade-offs between inbreeding control and genetic gain, with optimal strategy depending on breeding program objectives and trait genetic architecture.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Maltecca et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: