Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T14:14:33.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic variation within and among animal populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

W.G. Hill  and
X.-S. Zhang
W.G. Hill
Affiliation:
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JT, UK
X.-S. Zhang
Affiliation:
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JT, UK
Get access

Abstract

Factors that influence variability between and within populations at levels ranging from the molecular to quantitative traits are reviewed. For quantitative traits, models of how levels of variation are determined and how they change have to be based on simplifying assumptions. At its simplest, variation is maintained by a balance between gain by mutation and loss by sampling due to finite population size. Rates of response in commercial breeding programmes and long-term selection experiments are reviewed. It is seen that rates of progress continue to be high in farmed livestock, but not in race horses, and that continuing responses have been maintained for 100 generations in laboratory experiments. Hence variability can be maintained over long periods despite intense selection in populations of limited size. The potential role of conserved populations is reviewed, and it is suggested that their role is unlikely to be as a useful source of variation in commercial populations but mainly to preserve our culture and to fill particular niches.

Type
Section 2: Quantitative and molecular genetic basis for conservation
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 30: Farm Animal Genetic Resources , 2004 , pp. 67 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

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

Barton, N.H. and Keightley, P.D. 2002. Understanding quantitative genetic variation. Nature Reviews Genetics 3: 11–21.Google Scholar
Bijma, P., Van Arendonk, J.A.M. and Woolliams, J.A. 2001. Predicting rates of inbreeding for livestock improvement schemes. Journal of Animal Science 79: 840–853.Google Scholar
Blott, S.C., Williams, J.L. and Haley, C.S. 1998. Genetic relationships among European cattle breeds. Animal Genetics 29(4): 273–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bünger, L., Renne, U. and Buis, R.C. 2001. Body weight limits in mice - Long-term selection and single genes. P. 337–360. In: Encyclopedia of Genetics. Edited by Reeve, E.C.R.. Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, London, Chicago.Google Scholar
Dudley, J.W. and Lambert, R.J. 2004. 100 generations of selection for oil and protein in corn. Plant Breeding Reviews 24: (in press).Google Scholar
Dunnington, E.A. and Siegel, P.B. 1996. Long-term divergent selection for eight-week body weight in White Plymouth Rock chickens. Poultry Science 75:1168–1179.Google Scholar
Falconer, D.S., and Mackay, T.F.C. 1996. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 4th ed. Longman, Harlow, UK.Google Scholar
Gaffney, B., and Cunningham, E.P. 1988. Estimation of genetic trend in racing performance of thoroughbred horses. Nature 332: 722–724.Google Scholar
Heaton, M.P., Grosse, W.M., Kappes, S.M., Keele, J.W. Chitko-McKown, C.G., Cundiff, L.V., Braun, A., Little, D.P. and Laegrid, W.W. 2001. Estimation of DNA sequence diversity in bovine cytokine genes. Mammalian Genome. 12: 32–37.Google Scholar
Heaton, M.P., Harhay, G.P., Bennet, G.L., Stone, R.T., Grosse, W.M., Casas, E., Keele, J.W., Smith, T.P.L., Chitko-McKown, C.G., and Laegrid, W.W. 2002. Selection and use of SNP markers for animal identification and paternity analysis in U.S. beef cattle. Mammalian Genome. 13: 272–281.Google Scholar
Hill, W.G. 1982. Predictions of response to artificial selection from new mutations. Genetical Research 40: 255–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W.G. 2000. Maintenance of quantitative genetic variation in animal breeding programmes. Livestock Production Science 63: 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W.G. 2002. Direct effects of selection on phenotypic variability of quantitative traits. Proceedings of 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. CD-ROM. Communication No. 19-02.Google Scholar
Hill, W.G. and Bünger, L. 2004. Inferences on the genetics of quantitative traits from long-term selection in laboratory and farm animals. Plant Breeding Reviews 24: 169–210.Google Scholar
Keightley, P.D. 1998. Genetic basis of response to 50 generations of selection on body weight in inbred mice. Genetics 148: 1931–1939.Google Scholar
Keightley, P.D. 2004. Mutational variation and long-term selection response. Plant Breeding Reviews 24: 227–247.Google Scholar
Koerhuis, A.N.M., and Thompson, R. 1997. Models to estimate maternal effects for juvenile body weight in broiler chickens. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 29: 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. and Walsh, B. 1998. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, USA.Google Scholar
McKay, J.C., Barton, N.F., Koerhuis, A.N.M. and McAdam, J.. 2000. The challenge of genetic change in the broiler chicken. p. 1–7. In: The Challenge of Genetic Change in Animal Production. Edited by Hill, W.G., Bishop, S.C., McGuirk, B.J., McKay, J.C., Simm, G., G., and Webb, A.J., Occasional Publication of the British Society of Animal Science, No 27.Google Scholar
Marks, H.L. 1996. Long-term selection for body weight in Japanese quail under different environments. Poultry Science 75:1198–1203.Google Scholar
Martinez, V., Bünger, L. and Hill, W.G. 2000. Analysis of response to 20 generations of selection for body composition in mice: fit to infinitesimal assumptions. Genetics, Selection, Evolution. 32: 3–21.Google Scholar
Nestor, K.E., Noble, D.O., Zhu, J. and Moritsu, Y.. 1996. Direct and correlated responses to long-term selection for increased body weight and egg production in turkeys. Poultry Science 75: 1180–1191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robertson, A. 1960. A theory of limits in artificial selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B153: 234–249.Google Scholar
SanCristobal, M. and 27 others. 2002. Genetic diversity in pigs. Preliminary results on 58 European breeds and lines. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Communication No. 26-14.Google Scholar
Smith, E.J., Shi, L. and Smith, G. 2002. Expressed sequence tags for the chicken genome from a normalized 10-day-old white leghorn whole-embryo cDNA library. 3. DNA sequence analysis of genetic variation in commercial chicken populations. Genome 45: 261–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, X.-S. and Hill, W.G. 2002. Joint effects of pleiotropic selection and stabilizing selection on the maintenance of quantitative genetic variation at mutation-selection balance. Genetics 162: 459–471.Google Scholar
Zhang, X.-S., Wang, J. and Hill, W.G. 2004. Influence of dominance, leptokurtosis and pleiotropy of deleterious mutations on quantitative genetic variation at mutation-selection balance. Genetics 166: (in press).Google Scholar