A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E J. Pietarinen & A. Mäki-Tanila (2020) 29: 395–404 395 The efficiency of multi-generation selection on maternal traits, with implications for reindeer Jaakko Pietarinen and Asko Mäki-Tanila Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 28, 00014 Helsinki, Finland e-mail: Jaakko.Pietarinen@helsinki.fi Maternally affected traits, such as juvenile growth and survival, provide resilience in mammal species, in particular for reindeer living in extreme northern habitat. The genetic variation in such traits is caused by direct and maternal genetic effects (DGE and MGE, respectively). We used Willham’s variance-component approach and extended a family index with the focal individual and its full- and half-sibs to an approximated BLUP (pseudo-BLUP) by includ- ing the parents’ estimated breeding values. Most of the deviations of the predicted responses from the simulated ones were 4.1% for DGE and 5.3% for MGE. The benefits of index and BLUP selection are high in the case of nega- tive correlation, large full-sib family and in particular, when maternal half-sibs are available. Higher economic value for MGE than for DGE is needed, since with equal heritabilities and economic weights for the effects the maternal response is 40 to 70% of the direct one. With negative correlation, records on collateral relatives beyond sibs are possibly needed. They would support also the prediction of MGE in uniparous reindeer lacking full-sib information. Key words: maternal effects, quantitative genetics, breeding programmes, data collection Introduction Maternal effects are common and important in all mammals and describe the effects a mother (dam) has on her offspring’s phenotype. In general, such effects are social interaction or indirect genetic effects with possible envi- ronmental component (Dickerson 1947, Willham 1963, Moore et al. 1997, Bijma 2006, Wolf and Wade 2009). In natural populations maternal care and other maternal effects are important in determining the survival and other fitness traits of the young (Donohue 1999, Hereford and Moriuchi 2005, Räsänen and Kruuk 2007). In heterogene- ous and extreme northern environments utilized by semi-domesticated reindeer with the habitat of the animal un- dergoing yearly changes, maternal effects have an important role in phenotypic plasticity providing a fast, adaptive (but temporary) response to the changing environment shared by offspring and mother (Mousseau and Fox 1998). Animal breeding research has been occupied by the genetic basis of maternal effect as an indirect genetic effect (IGE) affecting the total genetic variation available for selection (Bijma et al. 2007). In meat producing livestock species, maternal effects are important for traits relating to growth such as birth weight, weaning weight, aver- age daily gain etc. Many maternal effects consist of behavior traits and one option would be to perform selection on behavioral ob- servations (Chiang et al. 2002). In circumventing laborious data recording problems, animal breeders have facili- tated the selection on maternal traits by the use of statistical methods. The variation in maternal traits can be modelled by Willham’s (1963, 1972) variance component model expressing the phenotype as the sum of individ- ual’s direct effect and its’ dam’s maternal effects. Our goal is the development of methodology to assess the design and volume of data collection to reach satis- factory accuracy of breeding values for direct and maternal effects with multi-generation information. A general (analytical) method is desirable because the alternative, stochastic simulation, would give answers only to specific situations. Simulation have been used for example by Lourenco et al. (2013) to study the effect of genetic evalua- tion method and Maiorano et al. (2019) to study selection when using pooled semen. Where available, maternal half-sibs are expected to be efficient in predicting MGE (Willham 1963, Noble et al. 2014, Maiorano et al. 2019). Wray and Hill (1989) introduced an analytical method for approximating the use of multi-generation pedigree information for predicting the response to selection (often now called pseudo-BLUP). The method starts from a selection index on collateral relatives’ phenotypic information and mimics the influence of pedigree informa- tion using parents’ estimated breeding values (EBV’s) and iterating over generations. The compact method lends itself to extensions, e.g. Villanueva et al. (1993) extended the method to multi-trait context, which was applied by Mulder and Bijma (2005) to study genetic evaluation in traits under GxE interaction. Dekkers (2007) used an Manuscript received September 2020 A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E J. Pietarinen & A. Mäki-Tanila (2020) 29: 395–404 396 approximation to study the benefits of computing and using genomic EBV’s. Mulder (2016) resorted to pseudo- BLUP approach in investigating the gains due to genomic selection for selection strategies under GxE interaction. The objectives of our study are to: Extend and validate a pseudo-BLUP approximation to traits influenced by ma- ternal effects. Study the outcome of selection schemes for direct and maternal effects with different economic weights, design and volume of data collection. We discuss implications for data collection and selection schemes, in particular for reindeer. Materials and methods Quantitative genetic framework A maternally affected phenotype ( ) is made of an individual’s direct genetic effect (DGE) and its dam’s (through- out the text subscript d) maternal genetic effects (MGE) (covering both pre- and postnatal effects), and the trait is expressed as ( deviation from the population mean): (1) where is (possibly correlated) environmental components of both indirect and direct effects and c stands for the effect of common environment shared by the full-sibs. We assume an infinitesimal model with normally distrib- uted genetic effects (Fisher 1918, Bulmer 1980). We use the notation and for direct and maternal genetic variance, respectively and for their covariance. Further is the variance due to common environment and is the variance due to other environmental effects. The genetic (co)variances among the selected parents are affected by (possibly different) selection in the two sex- es and the covariance between the effect and selection criterion (phenotype) ( and covariance between and DGE and MGE, respectively) (Pearson 1903, Bulmer 1971, Robertson 1977). For example, the cova- riance amongst selected dams is where , is the intensity of selection and is the truncation point on the standardized scale. Table 1. Notation of parameters 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝, 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝2 phenotype, phenotypic variance DGE or 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 direct genetic effect. MGE or 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 maternal genetic effect. IGE indirect genetic effect 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 (𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒2), 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐(𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2) environmental effect (its variance), effect (and covariance) of common environment 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑, 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 dam and sire (also used as subscript) 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2(ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2), 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 (ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 ) variance (heritability) of DGE and MGE 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚), 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝, 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 covariance (correlation) between DGE and MGE, their covariances with phenotype 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖, 𝚤𝚤𝚤𝚤,̅ 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 intensity of selection, average intensity across sexes, truncation point on the standardized scale of normal distribution 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘, 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘� variance reduction term and its average across sexes 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 (0) subscript for generation number (base generation) 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����, 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹���� mean of full- and half-sib phenotypes 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗, 𝒃𝒃𝒃𝒃 index coefficient of information source j, vector of selection index coefficients 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓, 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛, 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 mating ratio, number of full-sibs and number of sires 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻, 𝒘𝒘𝒘𝒘 selection goal, vector of economic weights EBV (GEBV) (genomically) estimated breeding value, 𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 selection index 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼2, 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 , 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 selection index variance, covariance of genetic effects a and m with index 𝒙𝒙𝒙𝒙, 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷, 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮 vector of information sources, their (co)variance matrix and their covariance matrix with genetic effects 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 + 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒, (1) 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 2⁄ 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖(𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥) 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E J. Pietarinen & A. Mäki-Tanila (2020) 29: 395–404 397 Selection does not affect the (co)variances , and (0 referring to the base generation) due to seg- regation. Therefore in the generation t the aforementioned covariance is (the bar refers to the mean across sexes). The response to selection (or the visible change in the phenotype) after a generation of phenotypic selection (cf Willham 1972) is . An asymptotic response is reached within few generations when the Bulmer effect reaches a balance and , and . The response can be written , where and are the (co)variances among selected dams. Selection index framework We construct the family index based on the phenotype of an individual ( ), the mean phenotype of its full-sibs (excluding the individual) and the mean phenotype of its half-sibs (excluding the individual and the full-sib family where it belongs to). of the individual is for either effect where b j is the respective index weight of the relative’s information. In a hierarchical mating structure, each sire (subscript s throughout the text) mates with f dams and each dam has n offspring. The variances of and in generation t are according to Willham (1963): and . Usually a two-trait approach is used for maternal traits, while in constructing the selection index resorting to the same phenotypic information, we use the approach similar to Van Vleck (1970). The aggregate selection goal of maternally affected trait can be written H = [a m]w, where w is a 2 × 1 vector for economic weights for DGE and MGE, respectively (e.g. in the case of equal weighting, w is a vector of ones). The selection index is I = b x, where x is a vector of information sources (in addition to p, and also the dam’s and sire’s index and the mean index of half-sibs’ dams) and b is a 6 × 1 vector of selection index coefficients solved from the ordinary selection index equation b = P–1 G w. The formulae for the covariances in the P matrix are: , , , and and the variance of index values amongst selected dams (and sires) is: and ) and dams of the half sibs is and and . The matrix P (in generation t) is a (co)- variance matrix (2) of information sources without common environmental variance. (2) The G t matrix (for generation t) has a column for both direct and maternal effect corresponding to the covariance of a respective genetic effect with the sources of information in the index 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡) = 1 2 �𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘� 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2⁄ � + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚0 Δ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + Δ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 𝚤𝚤𝚤𝚤̅ 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡) (𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡) 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡) + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2 ) 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡) 2 = 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(∞) 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡) 2 = 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(∞) 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡) = 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(∞) 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 �𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(∞) 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(∞) + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 � 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝� 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻����𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏1 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏2 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏3 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 = � 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 � (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 + ( 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 )/(𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 − 1) 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆����𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 = 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 + 1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 1 � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 2� + 1 (𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 1)𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 � 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒2� 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 = 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 + 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻����𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻���� = 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 = 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 2 = 𝒃𝒃𝒃𝒃′𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝒃𝒃𝒃𝒃. 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼�̅�𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼�̅�𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼�̅�𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 0 , 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼�̅�𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 = (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 2/(𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 1) and [𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼 , 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼] = 𝒃𝒃𝒃𝒃′𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕 = ⎣ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎡𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 + 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) � 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎� (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 1 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 0 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) � 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎� (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 1 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 0 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 0 1 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 1 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) � 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎� (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2 0 0 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2 0 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎�̅�𝑑𝑑𝑑(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2 ⎦ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎤ (2) 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹���� 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻���� 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹���� 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻���� 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 [𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎] = 𝒃𝒃𝒃𝒃′𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮 𝑷𝑷𝑷𝑷𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕 = ⎣ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎡𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 + 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) � 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎� (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 1 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 0 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) � 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎� (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 1 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 0 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 0 1 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 1 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 − 1 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) � 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎� (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2 0 0 𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2 0 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎�̅�𝑑𝑑𝑑(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2 ⎦ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎤ (2) A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E J. Pietarinen & A. Mäki-Tanila (2020) 29: 395–404 398 (3) Alternatively we can construct the family index using independent information sources (within full-sib family devia- tions and full sibs within half-sibs, i.e. no covariances) and have , where the three independent information sources demonstrate the influence of full-sib information versus within family deviations and half-sib mean. The diagonal elements in P are: , and . The G matrix is: (4) Using independent information sources in the case of maternal half-sibs (S = sires per dam) the diagonal elements of P t are then: , and (with the off-diagonals being zero) and (5) Pseudo-BLUP The family index can be extended to include information available on the parents, i.e. their EBV, and the index for individual would be where is the mean of the paternal half-sibs’ dams’ EBV´s. We can mimic the effect of accrued pedigree information by repeat- ing the calculations over generations and arrive at an approximated BLUP (or pseudo-BLUP) of breeding values (Wray and Hill 1979). In the pseudo-BLUP the available information for the index accumulates over generations, and the individual’s EBVs become more accurate (corresponding to the effect of large and information rich re- lationship matrix in BLUP), which leads to higher response to selection. After the initiation of (co)variances, the steps for predicting the response at each generation for index selection and pseudo-BLUP are (i) calculation of in- dex coefficients and responses, and (ii) updating (co)variances in P and G. We used pseudo-BLUP method to study the influence of variable family full-sib family size and mating ratio. With both paternal and maternal half-sibs, different heritabilities and genetic correlation between DGE and MGE. In addition, the common environmental variance amongst full-sibs and variable economic weights for the effects was investigated. Simulation We compared the pseudo-BLUP prediction with stochastic simulation results using R-program (R Core Team 2019). The packages cpgen (Hauer 2015) and Matrix (Bates and Maechler 2018) were used for optimization of matrix calculations. Each new discrete generation was generated with 50 sires each mated with 10 females producing 10 offspring each with the selection intensity (proportion selected) across offspring generation being approximate- ly 2.4 (2%) for males and 1.4 (20%) for females. High full-sib family size was chosen because selection for MGE is then more successful and the substantial differences in selection intensities in the sexes were used to mimic the 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝒕𝒕𝒕𝒕′ = ⎣ ⎢ ⎢ ⎢ ⎡ � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 + 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑� (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 2 � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 + 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑� (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 1 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑)𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 1 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 0 � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 � (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚0 � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 � (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 1 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑)𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 1 2 (1 − 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠)𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝐼𝐼𝐼𝐼(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 0⎦ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎤ (3) 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏1(𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 − 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����) + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏2(𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹���� − 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����) + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏3𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹���� 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎(𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝−𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����)𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 = 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 − 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎(𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����−𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����)𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 = 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 − 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = ⎣ ⎢ ⎢ ⎡ 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 2 � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑� 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚0 � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 � 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)⎦ ⎥ ⎥ ⎤ ′ (4) 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎(𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����−𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����)𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 = 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 − 1 � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 � (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) + 1 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 − 1 � 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒2� + 1 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛(𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 − 1) � 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒2� 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎(𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝−𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����)𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 = 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 − 1 � 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒2� 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎(𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻����)𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 2 = � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 1 𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 − 1 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 2 � (𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) + 1 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛(𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆 − 1) � 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 2 + 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒2� 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = ⎣ ⎢ ⎢ ⎡ 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 2 � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑� 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚0 � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 � 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)⎦ ⎥ ⎥ ⎤ ′ (4) 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏1𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏2𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏3𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹����𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏4𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏5𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 + 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏6𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉������𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸������𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑮𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 = ⎣ ⎢ ⎢ ⎡ 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎0 2 � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑� 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1) 2 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚0 � 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 1 2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 2 � 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1 1 4 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠(𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡−1)⎦ ⎥ ⎥ ⎤ ′ (4) A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E J. Pietarinen & A. Mäki-Tanila (2020) 29: 395–404 399 possibilities in many species. At the beginning, we generated unrelated parents and grandparents, and by random mating, an offspring generation in order to produce maternally affected phenotypes and genetic values for the first selection candidates. We used the R-package MCMCglmm (Hadfield 2010) to generate the starting values for ge- netic effects in the founder population. Selected individuals were randomly mated to generate the offspring with consideration of the effect of possible inbreeding on the segregation variance utilizing the R-package pedigree (Coster 2012) in estimating the inbreeding coefficients. In the simulation the evaluation was based on either phe- notype, family index or BLUP with full pedigree information. The selection was carried out for 10 generations with equal economic weights for the two effects, and an asymptotic response was reached. We ran all simulated cases multiple (50) times to establish reliable estimates (expressed with standard errors) for the means across replicates. We tested the three cases with different genetic correlations ( ) between DGE and MGE (0.5, 0.0, –0.5) keep- ing the heritabilities for the effects at 0.30. We studied a whole range of genetic parameter values (results not shown) and here a high heritability for MGE was used to better demonstrate the potential selection response in MGE. The deviations due to the covariance of common environmental effects were not simulated. Results Phenotypic, family index and pseudo-BLUP selection Overall, the analytical methods predict in a satisfactory way the outcome of the simulated response to selection (Fig. 1 and Table 2). The difference between the analytical prediction and the simulated response to selection was on average below 4.1% for DGE and 5.3% for MGE. Standard error of the simulated response mean in the last gen- eration ranged from 0.003 to 0.007. For MGE, the predicted response to family index selection was slightly below the simulated gain for and vice versa for . The family index and pseudo-BLUP are very accurate in predicting DGE. When , the response to pheno- typic selection for MGE with = 0 is about half of that in DGE, reflecting the one generation gap in the expres- sion of the maternal effect. With family index or BLUP, the difference is less drastic, but the response of DGE is still ∼70% higher than that of MGE. The phenotypic selection is the least efficient and does not yield any gain for < 0, while the family index and BLUP are qualitatively different with the latter yielding the highest response. With < 0, the MGE response to family index and BLUP selection is positive in contrast to the phenotypic se- lection and almost 40% of that in DGE. 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 > 0 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 < 0 Fig. 1. Predicted and averaged simulated responses (in phenotypic standard deviation (σ p ) units of the base generation) when the selection (across 5 generations) is on either phenotype, family index or aggregate (and equally weighted) BLUP breeding values. Heritabilities: = 0.3 and = –0.5. The simulated population is made of 50 sires each mated to 10 females and having 10 offspring each. Selection intensity follows this structure being 2.4 for males and 1.4 for females. Simulation replicates (gray) are shown for BLUP selection. σ p Phenotypic selection Index BLUP 0 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 40 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Generations 0 1 2 3 Method Predicted Simulated Response direct total maternal G en et ic g ai n in ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E J. Pietarinen & A. Mäki-Tanila (2020) 29: 395–404 400 The asymptotic rate of response is, in general, 75–80% of the first generation response but this difference is con- sistent over the cases, indicating that the latter could be used for comparing selection strategies. This has been observed in the earlier studies (cf Wray and Hill 1989). With < 0 the pseudo-BLUP has a considerable prediction error (some 20%) indicating need to add information sources beyond full- and half-sibs and their parents’ EBV’s. Variable family size and mating ratio In general, with paternal half-sibs, higher f improves the response of DGE (with slight relative decrease for the ma- ternal effect) while larger n improves the response of MGE (cf Table 4). With uncorrelated DGE and MGE, half-sib information alone does not capture any maternal effect variation, as implied by the G matrix in (4). Similar results have been found analytically by Lande and Kirkpatrick (1990), who did not consider the Bulmer effect or inbreeding. Maternal half-sibs While paternal half-sibs provide no information on MGE when = 0, maternal half-sibs are very valuable even then (Table 3) and with equal heritabilities the MGE response is twice the DGE one. Further when ≠ 0, the in- dividual’s own record is better in predicting MGE than its full-sibs. Different heritabilities When and is highly negative, then with paternal half-sib structure the negative response in MGE is moderated having data from large n (Table 4, upper section). When is moderately negative, the MGE response is positive with large n. In general, when f increases the response for MGE effect decreases, if is small and pos- itive (for example < 0.75, Table 4). When (Table 4, lower section), and is highly negative (–0.75), selection favors MGE almost exclusive- ly, even if f is high. When is less negative (–0.25) or positive, the response for DGE is higher as f increases and is, in general, lower for higher n. The selection response for MGE is again proportional to n and lower with larger f as was noticed for the equal heritability case. Table 2. The predicted (pred) and simulated (sim) rate of response (in σ p units of the base generation) to selection on phenotype, family index and approximated BLUP of the aggregate genotype of equally weighted direct ( ) and maternal ( ) effect. The response is shown for first generation and an average rate across generations 7 to 10. = 0.3 and = –0.5, 0.0, +0.5. The population is made of 50 sires each mated with 10 dams producing 10 offspring each and the selection intensity is 2.4 in males and 1.4 in females. Selection criterion phenotype index BLUP effect generation pred sim pred sim pred sim 0.5 1 0.671 0.731 0.738 0.741 0.753 0.762 7 to 10 0.541 0.544 0.539 0.563 0.574 0.546 1 0.536 0.579 0.588 0.587 0.585 0.593 7 to 10 0.433 0.445 0.398 0.434 0.444 0.440 0 1 0.575 0.587 0.579 0.593 0.596 0.589 7 to 10 0.443 0.449 0.426 0.454 0.459 0.426 1 0.288 0.292 0.345 0.341 0.341 0.357 7 to 10 0.222 0.219 0.247 0.253 0.267 0.259 –0.5 1 0.468 0.429 0.371 0.399 0.392 0.404 7 to 10 0.353 0.357 0.288 0.314 0.309 0.291 1 0 –0.002 0.139 0.118 0.130 0.131 7 to 10 0 0.004 0.110 0.118 0.112 0.140 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 > ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 > ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E J. Pietarinen & A. Mäki-Tanila (2020) 29: 395–404 401 Economic weights Equal weighting of DGE and MGE gives the highest total response independent of the sign of (Table 5A). When < 0 the response with prioritized MGE (w = [1 2]) gives a better MGE response, in particular for high . With > 0 , the response in MGE is substantial and close to that in DGE with moderate or high (results not shown). When either effect is ignored in the selection goal, the co-response in MGE smaller than the DGE one. Common environmental variance A high common environmental variance decreases only the accuracy of EBV for MGE (Table 5B). This is reflected also as a reduced overall response. Table 3. The effect of independent family information sources on selection response after one generation of selection when each dam is mated to multiple sires (maternal half sibs). f = 5 or 10 and n = 2 or 10, = 0.3 and = –0.5, 0.0, +0.5. Selection intensity was 2.06 in both sexes. Mating ratio = 5 Information sources for the pedigree index = –0.5 = 0.0 = 0.5 2 full-sibs per sire Direct 0 0.033 0.111 0.227 0.267 0.360 0.402 0.448 0.559 Maternal 0.403 0.379 0.321 0.455 0.439 0.405 0.502 0.509 0.529 10 full-sibs per sire Direct 0 0.130 0.241 0.242 0.389 0.522 0.416 0.567 0.727 Maternal 0.454 0.358 0.277 0.485 0.43 0.387 0.520 0.546 0.586 Mating ratio = 10 2 full-sibs per sire Direct 0 0.032 0.103 0.240 0.281 0.370 0.415 0.464 0.571 Maternal 0.445 0.421 0.368 0.481 0.465 0.433 0.519 0.526 0.546 10 full-sibs per sire Direct 0 0.139 0.246 0.248 0.407 0.536 0.422 0.588 0.743 Maternal 0.473 0.369 0.292 0.496 0.437 0.396 0.527 0.556 0.596 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 Table 4. The effect of family structure on the rate of response to selection (in units of the base generation) in direct ( ) and maternal ( ) effect as the mean rate of response in generations 7 to 10 with equal weight on the effects. Heritabilities: = 0.3, = 0.1 and = 0.1, = 0.3 and = –0.75, –0.25, 0.25 or 0.75. The number of sires was 50 and selection intensity was 2.06 for both sexes. –0.75 –0.25 0.25 0.75 FS family size 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 mating ratio Direct response = 0.3, = 0.1 2 0.465 0.480 0.505 0.512 0.553 0.563 0.604 0.615 20 0.51 0.511 0.537 0.533 0.576 0.579 0.619 0.627 Maternal response 2 –0.146 –0.138 0.016 0.041 0.152 0.174 0.275 0.290 20 –0.174 –0.162 –0.002 0.026 0.144 0.164 0.279 0.290 Direct response = 0.1, = 0.3 2 –0.006 –0.069 0.129 0.105 0.215 0.212 0.286 0.293 20 –0.073 –0.128 0.14 0.105 0.235 0.229 0.302 0.309 Maternal response 2 0.169 0.311 0.251 0.344 0.362 0.419 0.474 0.506 20 0.250 0.384 0.241 0.344 0.350 0.405 0.481 0.509 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻���� 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻���� 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻���� 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻���� , 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻���� 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻���� , 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻���� 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻����, 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻����, 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻����, 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻����, 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻����, 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻����, 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = 0.3, ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.1 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = 0.1, ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻���� , 𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻���� 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = 0.3, ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.1 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = 0.3, ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.1 A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E J. Pietarinen & A. Mäki-Tanila (2020) 29: 395–404 402 Discussion Methodology and results The main result of the study is the development of an analytical approximation for an animal model BLUP selection for traits influenced by maternal effects. Reduction of genetic variance due to Bulmer effect is considered enabling the comparison for simulated truncation selection. Because the number of sires was 50 (implying negligible rate of inbreeding), in the pseudo-BLUP there was no need to adjust the segregation genetic variance for inbreeding, neither to reduce selection intensity due to finite population size (cf Meuwissen 1991). Khaw et al. (2014) mentioned the construction of pseudo-BLUP for IGE, while due to the large number of required parameters and subsequent complicated structures ultimately preferred to use simulation in their study. Maternal traits represent a simple case for IGE and in our approach only few additional parameters are needed in a single trait case to arrive at compact pseudo-BLUP expressions. In general, BLUP selection gave (slightly) higher response compared to family index. The rate of genetic change asymptotes when selection is carried over several generations. The increased FS family size always benefits the selection of MGE. Although rarely available within the same generation, maternal half-sibs are naturally more desirable than paternal half-sibs (Maiorano et al. 2019) in increasing the accuracy of MGE predictions. In animal breeding studies is often found to be negative (Bradford 1972, Koch 1972, Robinson 1972, Bijma 2006). Phe- notypic selection fails to achieve any gain for negative . In such a case, the family index and BLUP are qualita- tively different. The cases with highly negative demonstrate that pseudo-BLUP should be extended to include collateral information sources beyond full- and half-sibs and their parents’ EBV’s. Implications for selection schemes The developed tool is a useful tool in assessing a short-term outcome of a selection scheme for a maternally af- fected trait. We considered simple examples on selecting for early growth performance. Using the parameters of Nordberg et al. (2005) for daily gain until two months’ age (DG2) in sheep, let , , and the proportion of common environmental variance be 0.3, 0.1, –0.4 and 0.0 for DG2, respectively. Asymptotic response to selection were predicted with 25 ewes per ram and 3 lambs per (Finnsheep) ewe. In males and females, the proportion se- lected was 10 and 50%. The asymptotic response in DGE was 70–75% of the first generation response. With given genetic parameters, very high (1:3) economic weight was needed before any positive response was achieved in the maternal effect. In this case the asymptotic response in the direct effect was 13–29% lower than the one with equal economic weights. In reindeer research, our aim is to find an optimum data collection strategy for under- standing the selection on average daily gain (ADG) from birth to autumn (cf Rönnegård et al. 2003). For the trait, Muuttoranta et al. (2014) found = 0.27 – 0.52, = 0.22 – 0.31 and = –0.74 – –0.80. In reindeer there are in practice no full-sibs within a year class and the selection has to be based on calf’s own record and those of its maternal half-sibs. Using = 0.40, = 0.25 and = –0.50, with equal weighting of the effects we need in- formation on more (3–5) half-sibs, to have a positive response in MGE or high (1:3) economic weight. The reduc- tion in the heritabilities and genetic correlation was almost negligible in both examples. Table 5. The asymptotic rate of response to selection (mean from 7th to 10th generation, in units of the base generation). There were 50 sires with f = 10 and n = 10. Selection intensity was 2.06 for both sexes. (A) The impact of changing the economic weights (w) for direct ( ) and maternal ( ) effect when = 0.3, and = 0.1, 0.3 or 0.5 and = –0.5. (B) The impact of common environmental variance ( ) when = = 0.3 and = 0.5 or –0.5. A B w=[1 0] w=[2 1] w=[1 1] w=[1 2] w=[0 1] = 0.5 = –0.5 0.1 0.538 0.531 0.509 0.404 -0.302 -0.099 -0.079 -0.053 0.016 0.174 0.0 0.607 0.443 0.331 0.124 0.3 0.513 0.468 0.331 0.089 -0.224 0.1 0.608 0.441 0.355 0.090 -0.180 -0.049 0.124 0.307 0.386 0.3 0.607 0.439 0.378 0.056 0.5 0.521 0.428 0.196 -0.025 -0.234 -0.262 0.011 0.322 0.496 0.548 ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎2 = ℎ𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚2 = 0.3 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 𝜎𝜎𝜎𝜎𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐2 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E J. Pietarinen & A. Mäki-Tanila (2020) 29: 395–404 403 In reindeer, due to intermediate accuracy and delays over several generations in the evaluation of maternal genet- ic effects, an early selection for their improvement would benefit from the use of genomic information in parent diagnostics and ultimately in genomic selection. Lillehammer et al. (2020) used simulation in analyzing genomic selection for maternal traits in sheep with extant large scale recording scheme. In reindeer for these purposes, we need to develop a cheap SNP panel based possibly on the recent genome sequence information (Weldene- godguad et al. 2020). The marker information can be incorporated in the pseudo-BLUP as a correlated informa- tion (Dekkers 2007) which would provide a useful method to assess also the benefits of genomic selection and an optimum recording scheme (Mulder 2016). Conclusions The pseudo-BLUP for maternal traits provides a basis to assess the requirements for data collection and selection strategies. It is obvious that to handle negative genetic correlation between direct and maternal effects in approx- imating BLUP selection we need also more distant collateral relatives. The pseudo-BLUP is very flexible and can be extended to multi-trait situation and therefore for the consideration of several economically important traits and the utilization of genomic information. Acknowledgements We have funding from the Nordic Centre of Excellence ReiGN project to carry out the research. We would also like to thank Piter Bijma from Wageningen Universtiy & Research for valuable comments on an earlier version of the article. References Bates, D. & Maechler, M. 2018. Matrix: Sparse and Dense Matrix Classes and Methods. R package version 1.2-15. Bijma, P., Muir, W.M. & Van Arendonk, J.A. 2007. Multilevel selection 1: Quantitative genetics of inheritance and response to se- lection. Genetics 175: 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.106.062711 Bijma, P. 2006. Estimating maternal genetic effects in livestock. Journal of Animal Science 84: 800–806. Bradford, G.E. 1972. The Role of Maternal Effects in Animal Breeding: VII. Maternal Effects in Sheep. Journal of Animal Science 35: 1324–1334. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1972.3561324x Bulmer, M.G. 1971. The effect of selection on genetic variability. The American Naturalist 105: 201. https://doi.org/10.1086/282718 Bulmer, M.G. 1980. The mathematical theory of quantitative genetics. Clarendon Press. 254 p. Chiang, C., Johnson, R.K. & Nielsen, M.K. 2002. Selection for maternal behavior in mice-direct and correlated responses. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 79: 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(02)00090-4 Coster, A. 2012. pedigree: Pedigree functions. R package version 1.4. Dekkers, J.C.M. 2007. Prediction of response to marker-assisted and genomic selection using selection index theory. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 124: 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00701.x Dickerson, G.E. 1947. Composition of hog carcasses as influenced by heritable differences in rate and economy of gain. Research Bulletin (Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station) 28: 11–21. Donohue, K. 1999. Seed Dispersal as a Maternally Influenced Character: Mechanistic Basis of Maternal Effects and Selection on Maternal Characters in an Annual Plant. The American Naturalist 154: 674–689. https://doi.org/10.1086/303273 Fisher, R.A. 1918. The Correlation Between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance. Transactions of the Royal So- ciety of Edinburgh. p. 399–433. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0080456800012163 Hadfield, J.D. 2010. MCMC Methods for Multi-Response Generalized Linear Mixed Models: The MCMCglmm R Package. Journal of Statistical Software 33: 1–22. Hauer, C. 2015. cpgen: Parallelized Genomic Prediction and GWAS. R package. Version 0.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/ package=cpgen. Hereford, J. & Moriuchi, K.S. 2005. Variation among populations of Diodia teres (Rubiaceae) in environmental maternal effects. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 18: 124–131.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2004.00797.x Khaw, H.L., Ponzoni, R.W. & Bijma, P. 2014, Indirect genetic effects and inbreeding: consequences of BLUP selection for socially affected traits on rate of inbreeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 46: 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-46-39 Koch, R.M. 1972. The Role of Maternal Effects in Animal Breeding: VI. Maternal Effects in Beef Cattle. Small Business Source- book: General Small Business Resources (Includes State and Federal Sections) (Entries 54644-63036) 35: 3396–3401. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1972.3561316x A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E J. Pietarinen & A. Mäki-Tanila (2020) 29: 395–404 404 Lande, R. & Kirkpatrick, M. 1990. Selection response in traits with maternal inheritance. Genetical Research 55: 189. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0016672300025520 Lillehammer, M., Sonesson, A.K., Klemetsdal, G., Blichfeldt, T. & Meuwissen, T.H.E. 2020. Genomic selection strategies to im- prove maternal traits in Norwegian White Sheep. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 137: 384–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbg.12475 Lourenco, D.A.L., Misztal, I., Wang, H., Aguilar, I., Tsuruta, S. & Bertrand, J.K. 2013. Prediction accuracy for a simulated mater- nally affected trait of beef cattle using different genomic evaluation models. Journal of Animal Science 91: 4090–4098. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5826 Maiorano, A.M., Assen, A., Bijma, P., Chen, C.Y., Silva, J.A., Herring, W.O., Tsuruta, S., Misztal, I. & Lourenco, D.A.L. 2019. Improv- ing accuracy of direct and maternal genetic effects in genomic evaluations using pooled boar semen: a simulation study. Journal of Animal Science 97: 3237–3245. https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/skz207 Meuwissen, T.H.E. 1991. Reduction of selection differentials in finite populations with a nested full-half sib family structure. Biometrics 47: 195–203. https://doi.org/10.2307/2532506 Moore, A.J., Brodie, E.D. & Wolf, J.B. 1997. Interacting Phenotypes and the Evolutionary Process: I. Direct and Indirect Genetic Effects of Social Interactions. Evolution 51: 1352. https://doi.org/10.2307/2411187 Mousseau, T.A. & Fox, C.W. 1998. The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13: 403–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01472-4 Mulder, H.A. & Bijma, P. 2005. Effects of genotype × environment interaction on genetic gain in breeding programs. Journal of Animal Science 83: 49–61. https://doi.org/10.2527/2005.83149x Mulder, H. 2016. Genomic selection improves response to selection in resilience by exploiting genotype by environment interac- tions. Frontiers in Genetics 7: 178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2016.00178 Muuttoranta, K., Holand, Ø, Røed, K.H., Tapio, M., Nieminen, M. & Mäki-Tanila, A. 2014. Genetic variation in meat production re- lated traits in reindeer (Rangifer t. tarandus). Rangifer 34: 21–36. https://doi.org/10.7557/2.34.1.2753 Noble, D.W.A., McFarlane, S.E., Keogh, J.S. & Whiting, M.J. 2014. Maternal and additive genetic effects contribute to variation in offspring traits in a lizard. Behavioral Ecology 25: 633–640. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/aru032 Nordberg, E., Berg, P. & Pedersen, J. 2005. Genetic parameters for birth weight, growth, and litter size in Nordic sheep breeds. Acta Agriculturae Scand Section A 55: 123–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064700500456081 Pearson, K. 1903. I. Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution. -XI. On the influence of natural selection on the var- iability and correlation of organs. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A 200: 321–330. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.1903.0001 R Core Team 2019. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Aus- tria. https://www.R-project.org/ Räsänen, K. & Kruuk, L.E.B. 2007. Maternal Effects and Evolution at Ecological Time-Scales. Functional Ecology 21: 408–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01246.x Robertson, A. 1977. The effect of selection on the estimation of genetic parameters. Zeitschrift für Tierzüchtung und Züchtungs- biologie 94: 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.1977.tb01542.x Robinson, O.W. 1972. The Role of Maternal Effects in Animal Breeding: V. Maternal Effects in Swine. Journal of Animal Science 35: 1303–1315. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1972.3561303x Rönnegård, L., Woolliams, J.A. & Danell, Ö. 2003. Breeding schemes in reindeer husbandry. Rangifer 23: 45–57. https://doi.org/10.7557/2.23.2.360 Van Vleck, L.D. 1970. Index Selection for Direct and Maternal Genetic Components of Economic Traits. Biometrics 26: 477–483. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529103 Villanueva, B., Wray, N. & Thompson, R. 1993. Prediction of asymptotic rates of response from selection on multiple traits using uni- variate and multivariate best linear unbiased predictors. Animal Production 57: 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100006541 Weldenegodguad, M., Pokharel, K., Ming, Y., Honkatukia, M., Peippo, J., Reilas, T., Røed, K.H. & Kantanen, J. 2020. Genome se- quence and comparative analysis of reindeer (Rangifer tarandus) in northern Eurasia. Scientific reports 10: 8980. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65487-y Willham, R.L. 1963. The Covariance between Relatives for Characters Composed of Components Contributed by Related Individu- als. Biometrics 19: 18–27. https://doi.org/10.2307/2527570 Willham, R.L. 1972. The Role of Maternal Effects in Animal Breeding: III. Biometrical Aspects of Maternal Effects in Animals. Jour- nal of Animal Science 35: 1288–1293. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas1972.3561288x Wolf, J.B. & Wade, M.J. 2009. What are maternal effects (and what are they not)? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364: 1107–1115. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0238 Wray, N.R. & Hill, W.G. 1989. Asymptotic rates of response from index selection. Animal Production 49: 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003356100032347 The efficiency of multi-generation selection on maternal traits,with implications for reindeer Introduction Materials and methods Quantitative genetic framework Pseudo-BLUP Simulation Results Phenotypic, family index and pseudo-BLUP selection Variable family size and mating ratio Maternal half-sibs Different heritabilities Economic weights Common environmental variance Discussion Methodology and results Implications for selection schemes Conclusions Acknowledgements References