Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8kt4b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T19:16:19.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal mating strategies to manage a heterozygous advantage major gene in sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 August 2017

J. Raoul ,
I. Palhière ,
J. M. Astruc ,
A. Swan  and
J. M. Elsen
J. Raoul*
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, BP 42118 - 31321 Castanet-Tolosan cedex, France GenPhySE, INRA, 24, chemin de Borde-Rouge - Auzeville Tolosane 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
I. Palhière
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, INRA, 24, chemin de Borde-Rouge - Auzeville Tolosane 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
J. M. Astruc
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, BP 42118 - 31321 Castanet-Tolosan cedex, France
A. Swan
Affiliation:
Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
J. M. Elsen
Affiliation:
GenPhySE, INRA, 24, chemin de Borde-Rouge - Auzeville Tolosane 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, France
*
†E-mail: Jerome.raoul@inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

Some mutations (or ‘major genes’) have a desirable effect in heterozygous carriers but an undesirable effect in homozygous carriers. When these mutations affect a trait of significant economic importance, their eradication, depending on their effect and frequency, may be counterproductive. This is especially the case of major genes affecting the ovulation rate and thus the prolificacy in meat sheep populations. To manage such situations, a mating design based on the major genotypes of reproducers has to be optimized. Both the effect of the major gene and the cost of genotyping candidates at this locus influence the expected genetic progress and profitability of the breeding plan. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal combination of matings that maximizes profitability at the level of the whole population (nucleus + commercial flocks). A deterministic model was developed and, using sequential quadratic programming methodology, the optimal strategy (optimal combination of matings) that maximized the economic gain achieved by the population across a range of genotype effects and genotyping costs was determined. The optimal strategy was compared with simpler and more practical strategies based on a limited number of parental genotype mating types. Depending on the genotype effect and genotyping costs, the optimal strategy varied, such that either the heterozygous frequency and/or polygenic gain was maximized with a large number of animals genotyped, or when genotyping costs were higher, the optimization led to lower heterozygous frequency and/or polygenic gain with fewer animals genotyped. Comparisons showed that some simpler strategies were close to the optimal strategy. An overlapping model was then derived as an application of the real case of the French Lacaune meat sheep OVI-TEST breeding program. Results showed that a practical strategy based on mating non-carriers to heterozygous carriers was only slightly less effective than the optimal strategy, with a reduction in efficiency from 3% to 8%, depending on the genotyping costs. Based on only two different parental genotype mating types, this strategy would be easy to implement.

Keywords

major genebreeding programdeterministic modeleconomics
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , March 2018 , pp. 454 - 463
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amer, PR, McEwan, JC, Dodds, KG and Davis, GH 1998. Cost benefit analysis of commercial use of the Inverdale prolificacy gene. Proceeding of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 58, 157–160.Google Scholar
Bodin, L, Raoul, J, Demars, J, Drouilhet, L, Mulsant, P, Sarry, J, Tabet, C, Tosser-Klopp, G, Fabre, S, Boscher, MY, Tiphine, L, Bertrand, C, Bouquet, PM, Maton, C, Teyssier, J, Jouannaux, C, Hallauer, J, Cathalan, D, Gueux, J and Pocachard, M 2011. Etat des lieux et gestion pratique des gènes d’ovulation détectés dans les races ovines françaises. In 18èmes Rencontres Recherches Ruminants, 7–8 December, Paris, France, pp. 393–400.Google Scholar
Carillier-Jacquin, C, Larroque, H and Robert-Granié, C 2016. Including α s1 casein gene information in genomic evaluations of French dairy goats. Genetic Selection Evolution 48, 54.Google Scholar
Cheype, A, Guerrier, J, Tortereau, F, François, D, Poivey, JP, Chile, K and Raoul, J 2013. Economical weighting of breeding objectives and definition of total merit indexes in BMC sheep breed. In 64th EAAP Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production, 26–30 August, Nantes, France, Book of Abstracts No. 19, p. 319.Google Scholar
Davis, GH, Montgomery, GW, Allison, AJ, Kelly, RW and Bray, AR 1982. Segregation of a major gene influencing fecundity in progeny of Booroola sheep. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture Research 25, 525–529.Google Scholar
Dekkers, JCM and van Arendonk, JAM 1998. Optimizing selection for quantitative traits with information on an identified locus in outbred populations. Genetical Research 71, 257–275.Google Scholar
de Vries, AG, Sosnicki, A, Garnier, JP and Plastow, GS 1998. The role of major genes and DNA technology in selection for meat quality in pigs. Meat Science 49, 245–255.Google Scholar
Drouilhet, L, Lecerf, F, Bodin, L, Fabre, S and Mulsant, P 2009. Fine mapping of the FecL locus influencing prolificacy in Lacaune sheep. Animal Genetics 40, 804–812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elsen, J and Mocquot, JC 1974. Méthode de prévision de l’évolution du niveau génétique d’une population soumise à une opération de sélection et dont les générations se chevauchent. INRA Bulletin Technique du Département de Génétique Animale 17, 30–54.Google Scholar
Elsen, JM 1993. Prediction of annual genetic gain and improvement lag between populations. Genetic Selection Evolution 25, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontanesi, L, Schiavo, G, Scotti, E, Galimberti, G, Calò, DG, Samorè, AB, Gallo, M, Russo, V and Buttazzoni, L 2015. A retrospective analysis of allele frequency changes of major genes during 20 years of selection in the Italian Large White pig breed. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 132, 239–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gomez-Raya, L and Klemetsdal, G 1999. Two-stage selection strategies utilizing marker-quantitative trait locus information and individual performance. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2008–2018.Google Scholar
Hill, WG 1974. Prediction and evaluation of response to selection with overlapping generations. Animal Production 18, 117–139.Google Scholar
Larzul, C, Manfredi, E and Elsen, JM 1997. Potential gain from including major gene information in breeding value estimation. Genetic Selection Evolution 29, 161–184.Google Scholar
Manfredi, E, Barbieri, M, Fournet, F and Elsen, JM 1998. A dynamic deterministic model to evaluate breeding strategies under mixed inheritance. Genetics Selection Evolution 30, 127–148.Google Scholar
Martin, P, Raoul, J and Bodin, L 2014. Effects of the FecL major gene in the Lacaune meat sheep population. Genetics Selection Evolution 46, 48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McEwan, JC 1995. Industry use of the Inverdale gene (Fec X). Proceeding of the New Zealand Society of Animal Production 55, 298–300.Google Scholar
OVI-TEST 2016. 1er centre français d'insémination ovine. Official website. Retrieved on 23 September 2016 from http://www.lacaune-ovitest.com/fr/lacaune-viande-ovi-test.php.Google Scholar
Palhière, I, Elsen, JM, Astruc, JM, Barillet, F, Bed’Hom, B, Bibé, B, Bouix, B, Brochard, M, Catrou, O, Dion, F, François, D, Griffon, L, Jullien, E, Orlianges, M, Perret, G and Tribon, P 2003. Breeding for scrapie resistance in France. In Proceeding of the International Workshop on Major Genes and QTL in Sheep and Goat, 8–11 December 2003, Toulouse, France, CD-ROM Communication No. 3-03.Google Scholar
Piper, LR and Bindon, BM 1982. The Booroola Merino and the performance of medium non-Peppin crosses at Armidale (ed. L. R. Piper, B. M. Bindon and R. D. Nethery). In The Booroola Merino, pp. 9–20. CSIRO, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.Google Scholar
Sánchez, A, Ilahi, H, Manfredi, E and Serradilla, JM 2005. Potential benefit from using the αs1-casein genotype information in a selection scheme for dairy goats. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 122, 21–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sodhi, SS, Jeong, DK, Sharma, N, Lee, JH, Kim, JH, Kim, SH, Kim, SW and Oh, SJ 2013. Marker assisted selection-applications and evaluation for commercial poultry breeding. Korean Journal of Poultry Science 40, 223–234.Google Scholar
Villanueva, B, Pong-Wong, R, Grundy, B and Woolliams, JA 1999. Potential benefit from using an identified major gene in BLUP evaluation with truncation and optimal selection. Genetics Selection Evolution 31, 115–133.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Raoul supplementary material

Raoul supplementary material 1

Download Raoul supplementary material(File)
File 46.7 KB