02704naa a2200313 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001910000310006024501200009126000090021152018050022065000140202565300110203965300230205065300200207365300120209365300150210565300140212065300250213465300090215965300260216870000250219470000190221970000250223870000150226370000140227870000330229277300650232521140842019-11-08       2019    bl uuuu     u00u1 u    #d1 aALMEIDA FILHO, J. E. de A.  aGenomic prediction of additive and non-additive effects using genetic markers and pedigrees.h[electronic resource]  c2019  aThe genetic merit of individuals can be estimated using models with dense markers and pedigree information. Early genomic models accounted only for additive effects. However, the prediction of non-additive effects is important for different forest breeding systems where the whole genotypic value can be captured through clonal propagation. In this study, we evaluated the integration of marker data with pedigree information, in models that included or ignored non-additive effects. We tested the models Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces (RKHS) and BayesA, with additive and additive-dominance frameworks. Model performance was assessed for the traits tree height, diameter at breast height and rust resistance, measured in 923 pine individuals from a structured population of 71 full-sib families. We have also simulated a population with similar genetic properties and evaluated the performance of models for six simulated traits with distinct genetic architectures. Different cross validation strategies were evaluated, and highest accuracies were achieved using within family cross validation. The inclusion of pedigree information in genomic prediction models did not yield higher accuracies. The different RKHS models resulted in similar predictions accuracies, and RKHS and BayesA generated substantially better predictions than pedigree-only models. The additive-BayesA resulted in higher accuracies than RKHS for rust incidence and in simulated additive-oligogenic traits. For DBH, HT and additive dominance polygenic traits, the RKHS- based models showed slightly higher accuracies than BayesA. Our results indicate that BayesA performs the best for traits with few genes with major effects, while RKHS based models can best predict genotypic effects for clonal selection of complex traits  aGenótipo  aBayesA  aGenomic Prediction  aGenotypic Value  aGenPred  aOligogenic  aPolygenic  aPredição genòmica  aRKHS  aShared Data Resources1 aGUIMARÃES, J. F. R.1 aSILVA, F. F. e1 aRESENDE, M. D. V. de1 aMUÑOZ, P.1 aKIRST, M.1 aRESENDE JÚNIOR, M. F. R. de  tG3: Genes, Genomes, Geneticsgv. 9, p. 2739-2748, Aug. 2019.