Comparison of (co)variance component estimates in control populations of red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) using restricted maximum likelihood and Gibbs sampling

Abstract

Mixed model (co)variance component estimates by REML and Gibbs sampling for two traits were compared for base populations and control lines of Red Flour Beetle (Tribolium castaneum). Two base populations (1296 records in the first replication, 1292 in the second) were sampled from laboratory stock. Control lines were derived from corresponding base populations with random selection and mating for 16 generations. The REML estimate of each (co)variance component for both pupa weight and family size was compared with the mean and 95% central interval of the particular (co)variance estimated by Gibbs sampling with three different weights on the given priors: ‘flat’, smallest, and 3.7% degrees of belief. Results from Gibbs sampling showed that flat priors gave a wider and more skewed marginal posterior distribution than the other two weights on priors for all parameters. In contrast, the 3.7% degree of belief on priors provided reasonably narrow and symmetric marginal posterior distributions. Estimation by REML does not have the flexibility of changing the weight on prior information as does the Bayesian analysis implemented by Gibbs sampling. In general, the 95% central intervals from the three different weights on priors in the base populations were similar to those in control lines. Most REML estimates in base populations differed from REML estimates in control lines. Insufficient information from the data, and confounding of random effects contributed to the variability of REML estimates in base populations. Evidence is presented showing that some (co)variance components were estimated with less precision than others. Results also support the hypothesis that REML estimates were equivalent to the joint mode of posterior distribution obtained from a Bayesian analysis with flat priors, but only when there was sufficient information from data, and no confounding among random effects.