基于BLUP和GBLUP方法估计北京油鸡胴体和肉质性状遗传参数的差异

旨在比较不同方法对遗传参数估计的差异，为未来北京油鸡胴体和肉质性状选育方法的制定提供参考依据。本研究利用传统最佳线性无偏预测（best linear unbiased prediction，BLUP）和基因组最佳线性无偏预测（genomic best linear unbiased prediction，GBLUP）两种方法对北京油鸡的胴体和肉质等性状进行了遗传参数估计。从系谱较为完整的北京油鸡群体中，选择100日龄体重相近的公鸡615只，测定其100日龄体重（BW）、屠宰率（EP）、胸肌率（BMP）、腿肌率（LMP）、腹脂率（AFP）、嫩度（T，以剪切力值表示）和肌内脂肪（IMF）等性状，并用SNP芯片（Illumina，60K）进行个体基因分型。结果表明，除IMF和剪切力（SF）遗传力基于两种方法的估值存在较大差异外，其余性状利用两种方法得到的遗传力估值差异较小；除嫩度外，GBLUP方法估计的遗传力均低于BLUP方法。所有胴体相关性状中，除屠宰率遗传力为低遗传力外，其余性状均属于中等遗传力性状。嫩度呈现低遗传力，而IMF基于BLUP法和GBLUP法的估计遗传力分别为中等（h² =0.256）和低遗传力（h² =0.107）。基于BLUP方法，IMF与BW、BMP和SF 3个性状间均呈高度遗传负相关（-0.572、-0.420、-0.682），与EP的遗传相关为中度负相关（-0.234），与AFP的遗传相关为中度正相关（0.420）；基于GBLUP方法，IMF与BW、BMP和SF 3个性状间均呈高度遗传负相关（-0.808、-0.725、-0.784），与EP的遗传相关为高度负相关（-0.626），与AFP的遗传相关为低度正相关（0.097）。综上，对于某些性状，基于传统的BLUP方法与新的GBLUP方法得到的遗传力与遗传相关估值存在较大差异，实际育种工作中，为提高育种效率，需要综合考虑。

The Difference of Genetic Parameters for Carcass and Meat Quality Traits by BLUP and GBLUP Methods in Beijing You Chicken

The objective of this study was to compare the differences in estimating genetic parameters using different methods, and provide a reference for breeding method development of carcass and meat quality traits in Beijing You chickens in the future. The genetic parameters for carcass and meat quality traits of Beijing You chickens were estimated using the traditional best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) and genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) methods. Six hundred and fifteen cooks with similar weight at 100 days of age were selected from the Beijing You chicken population with relatively complete pedigree. At 100 days of age, a total of 7 traits of these individuals were measured, including body weight (BW), eviscerating percentage (EP), breast muscle percentage (BMP), leg muscle percentage (LMP), abdominal fat percentage(AFP), tenderness (T,expressed by shear force) and intramuscular fat (IMF), and their genotypes were determined by the SNP chips (Illumina, 60K). The results showed that except that IMF and shear force (SF) heritability estimates were obviously different using the two methods, heritability estimates of the other traits were similar using the two methods. Furthermore excepted for tenderness, the heritabilities estimated using GBLUP were lower than those using BLUP method. All the carcass traits were of medium heritability except that the eviscerating percentage was of low heritability. The heritability estimates of tenderness were low, but the IMF using BLUP and GBLUP methods presented medium (h²=0.256) and low heritability (h²=0.107),respectively. Using BLUP, IMF showed high negative genetic correlations with BW, BMP and SF traits (-0.572, -0.420, -0.682), moderate negative genetic correlations with EP (-0.234), and moderate positive genetic correlations with AFP (0.420), respectively; using GBLUP, IMF showed high negative genetic correlations with BW, BMP and SF (-0.808, -0.725, -0.784), high negative genetic correlations with EP (-0.626), and low positive genetic correlations with AFP(0.097), respectively. In conclusion, there were large differences between estimates of genetic parameters for some traits using the traditional BLUP method and the new GBLUP method. In breeding practices, comprehensive consideration is needed to improve the breeding efficiency.