Effects of ROH-based versus GRM-based future inbreeding penalties on genetic gain, variance components, and inbreeding depression in dairy cattle

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2026-28483
Primary Topic
Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Effects of ROH-based versus GRM-based future inbreeding penalties on genetic gain, variance components, and inbreeding depression in dairy cattle

F. Tiezzi, C. Maltecca, J. Jiang, C.F. Baes et al.
Journal of Dairy Science
Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
article

Effects of ROH-based versus GRM-based future inbreeding penalties on genetic gain, variance components, and inbreeding depression in dairy cattle

F. Tiezzi, C. Maltecca, J. Jiang, C.F. Baes, L. Ma, J.B. Cole
article en

Abstract

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.

Journal of Dairy Science
North Carolina State University (US), University of Florida (US), Dairy Management (US), University of Florence (IT), University of Maryland, College Park (US), University of Guelph (CA)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.