Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

L R Totir

Publications and source records attributed to L R Totir.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Pregnancy rate and first-service conception rate in Angus heifers.

The objective of this project was to determine the genetic control of conception rate, or pregnancy percentage in Angus beef heifers. Producers from 6 herds in 5 states provided 3,144 heifer records that included breeding dates, breeding contemporary groups, service sires, and pregnancy check information. Two hundred fourteen sires of the heifers were represented; with 104 sires having less than 5 progeny, and 14 sires having greater than 50 progeny. These data were combined with performance and pedigree information, including actual and adjusted birth weights, weaning weights, and yearling weights, from the American Angus Association database. Heifer pregnancy rate varied from 75 to 95% between herds, and from 65 to 100% between sires, with an overall pregnancy rate of 93%, measured as the percentage of heifers pregnant at pregnancy check after the breeding season. Pregnancy was analyzed as a threshold trait with an underlying continuous distribution. A generalized linear animal model, using a relationship matrix, was fitted. This model included the fixed effects of contemporary group, age of dam, and first AI service sire, and the covariates of heifer age at the beginning of breeding, adjusted birth weight, adjusted weaning weight, and adjusted yearling weight. The relationship matrix included 4 generations of pedigree. The heritability of pregnancy and first-service conception rates on the underlying scale was 0.13 +/- 0.07 and 0.03 +/- 0.03, respectively. Estimated breeding values for pregnancy rate on the observed scale ranged from -0.02 to 0.05 for sires of heifers. Including growth traits with pregnancy rate as 2-trait analyses did not change the heritability of pregnancy rate. As expected for a reproductive trait, the heritability of pregnancy rate was low. Because of its low heritability, genetic improvement in fertility by selection on heifer pregnancy rate would be expected to be slow.

Animals↗

Sampling genotypes in large pedigrees with loops.

Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods have been proposed to overcome computational problems in linkage and segregation analyses. This approach involves sampling genotypes at the marker and trait loci. Scalar-Gibbs is easy to implement, and it is widely used in genetics. However, the Markov chain that corresponds to scalar-Gibbs may not be irreducible when the marker locus has more than two alleles, and even when the chain is irreducible, mixing has been observed to be slow. These problems do not arise if the genotypes are sampled jointly from the entire pedigree. This paper proposes a method to jointly sample genotypes. The method combines the Elston-Stewart algorithm and iterative peeling, and is called the ESIP sampler. For a hypothetical pedigree, genotype probabilities are estimated from samples obtained using ESIP and also scalar-Gibbs. Approximate probabilities were also obtained by iterative peeling. Comparisons of these with exact genotypic probabilities obtained by the Elston-Stewart algorithm showed that ESIP and iterative peeling yielded genotypic probabilities that were very close to the exact values. Nevertheless, estimated probabilities from scalar-Gibbs with a chain of length 235 000, including a burn-in of 200 000 steps, were less accurate than probabilities estimated using ESIP with a chain of length 10 000, with a burn-in of 5 000 steps. The effective chain size (ECS) was estimated from the last 25 000 elements of the chain of length 125 000. For one of the ESIP samplers, the ECS ranged from 21 579 to 22 741, while for the scalar-Gibbs sampler, the ECS ranged from 64 to 671. Genotype probabilities were also estimated for a large real pedigree consisting of 3 223 individuals. For this pedigree, it is not feasible to obtain exact genotype probabilities by the Elston-Stewart algorithm. ESIP and iterative peeling yielded very similar results. However, results from scalar-Gibbs were less accurate.

Algorithms↗