Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T13:26:27.641Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Managing genetic resources in selected and conserved populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

B. Villanueva ,
R. Pong-Wong ,
J.A. Woolliams  and
S. Avendaño
B. Villanueva
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
R. Pong-Wong
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian, EH25 9PS, UK
J.A. Woolliams
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian, EH25 9PS, UK
S. Avendaño
Affiliation:
Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
Get access

Abstract

Managing the rate of inbreeding (ΔF) provides a general framework for managing genetic resources in farmed breeding populations. Methods for managing ΔF have been developed over the last five years and they allow the attainment of the greatest expected genetic progress while restricting at the same time the increase in inbreeding. This is achieved by optimising the contribution that each candidate for selection must have to produce the next generation. The methods take into account all available performance and pedigree information and use Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) estimates as a predictor of merit. Importantly, these tools give at least equal, but more often more gain than traditional selection based on truncation of BLUP estimated breeding values when compared at the same ΔF. Deterministic predictions for the expected gain obtained with optimised selection with ΔF restricted are now available. The optimisation tool can be also applied in a conservation context to minimise ΔF with restrictions to avoid loss in performance in valuable traits. Information on known quantitative trait loci or on markers linked to them can be incorporated into the optimisation process to further increase selection response. Molecular genetic information can also be incorporated into these tools to increase the precision of genetic relationships between individuals and to manage ΔF at specific positions or genome regions.

Type
Section 2: Quantitative and molecular genetic basis for conservation
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 30: Farm Animal Genetic Resources , 2004 , pp. 113 - 132
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

Avendaño, S., Villanueva, B. and Woolliams, J.A. 2003a. Expected increases in genetic merit from using optimised contributions in two livestock populations of beef cattle and sheep. Journal of Animal Science 81:2964–2975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avendaño, S., Visscher, P.M. and Villanueva, B. 2002. Potential benefits of using identified major genes in two trait Breeding goals under truncation and optimal selection. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. CD-ROM communication no. 23-03.Google Scholar
Avendaño, S., Woolliams, J.A. and Villanueva, B. 2004. Mendelian sampling terms as a selective advantage in optimum breeding schemes with restrictions on the rate of inbreeding. Genetical Research, Cambridge 83: 1–10.Google Scholar
Avendaño, S., Woolliams, J.A. and Villanueva, B. 2003b. Predicting genetic gain when rates of inbreeding are constrained to predefined values. Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Science, 26-28 March, University of York, York, p. 46.Google Scholar
Borrow, H.M. 1993. The effects of inbreeding in beef cattle. Animal Breeding Abstracts 61: 737–751.Google Scholar
Brisbane, J.R. and Gibson, J.P. 1995. Balancing selection response and rate of inbreeding by including genetic relationships in selection decisions. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 91: 421–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caballero, A. and Santiago, E. 1998. Survival rates of major genes in selection programmes. Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, University of New England, Armidale, Australia, Vol. 26, pp. 5–12.Google Scholar
Caballero, A., Santiago, E. and Toro, M.A. 1996. Systems of mating to reduce inbreeding in selected populations. Animal Science 62: 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, K., Fredholm, M., Wintero, A.K., Jorgensen, J.N. and Andersen, S. 1996. Joint effect of 21 marker loci and effect of realized inbreeding on growth in pigs. Animal Science 62: 541–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekkers, J.C.M. and van Arendonk, J.A.M. 1998. Optimizing selection for quantitative traits with information on an identified locus in outbred populations. Genetical Research, Cambridge 71: 257–275.Google Scholar
Fernando, R.L. and Grossman, M. 1989. Marker assisted selection using best linear unbiased prediction. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 21: 467–477.Google Scholar
Fernández, J. and Caballero, A. 2001. Accumulation of deleterious mutations and equalization of parental contributions in the conservation of genetic resources. Heredity 86: 480–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández, A., Toro, M.A., Rodríguez, C. and Silió, L. 2002. Genetic analysis of fluctuating asymmetry for teat number in Iberian pigs. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. CD-ROM communication no. 15-08.Google Scholar
Frankham, R., Ballou, J.D. and Briscoe, D.A. 2002. Introduction to Conservation Genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.P. 1994. Short term gain at the expense of long term response with selection on identified loci. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada, Vol. 21, pp. 201–204.Google Scholar
Grundy, B., Villanueva, B. and Woolliams, J.A. 1998. Dynamic selection procedures for constrained inbreeding and their consequences for pedigree development. Genetical Research, Cambridge 72: 159–168.Google Scholar
Hall, S.J.G. and Hall, J.G. 1988. Inbreeding and population dynamics of the Chillingham cattle (Bos taurus). Journal of Zoology, London 216: 479–493.Google Scholar
Kinghorn, B.P., Meszaros, S.A. and Vagg, R.D. 2002. Dynamic tactical decisions systems for animal breeding. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. CD-ROM communication no. 23-07.Google Scholar
Larzul, C., Manfredi, E. and Elsen, J.M. 1997. Potential gain from including major gene information in breeding value estimation. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 29: 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. and Walsh, B. 1998. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland.Google Scholar
Manfredi, E., Barbieri, M., Fournet, F. and Eisen, J.M. 1998. A dynamic deterministic model to evaluate breeding strategies under mixed inheritance. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 30: 127–148.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, T.H.E. 1997. Maximizing the response of selection with a predefined rate of inbreeding. Journal of Animal Science 75: 934–940.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, T.H.E. and Woolliams, J.A. 1994a. Response versus risk in breeding programmes. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada, Vol. 18, pp. 236–243.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, T.H.E. and Woolliams, J.A. 1994b. Effective sizes of livestock populations to prevent a decline in fitness. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 89: 1019–1026.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nejati-Javaremi, A., Smith, C. and Gibson, J.P. 1997. Effect of total allelic relationship on accuracy of evaluation and response to selection. Journal of Animal Science 75: 1738–1745.Google Scholar
Nicholas, F.W. 1987. Veterinary Genetics. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Pong-Wong, R., George, A.W., Woolliams, J.A., Haley, C.S. 2001. A simple and rapid method for calculating identity-by-descent matrices using multiple markers. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 33: 453–471.Google Scholar
Pong-Wong, R. and Woolliams, J.A. 1998. Response to mass selection when an identified major gene is segregating, Genetics, Selection, Evolution 30: 313–337.Google Scholar
Saccheri, I., Kuussaari, M., Kankare, M., Vikman, P, Fortelius, W. and Hanski, I. 1998. Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature 392: 491–494.Google Scholar
Schoen, D.J., David, J.L. and Bataillon, T.M. 1998. Deleterious mutation accumulation and the regeneration of genetic resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA. 95: 394–399.Google Scholar
Simm, G., Oldham, J.D. and Coffey, M.P. 2001. Dairy cows in the future. In: Fertility in the High-Producing Dairy Cow. Edited by Diskin, M.G.. British Society of Animal Science Occasional Publication 26(1): 1–18.Google Scholar
Sonesson, A.K. and Meuwissen, T.H.E. 2000. Mating schemes for optimum contribution selection with constrained rates of inbreeding. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 32: 231–248 Google Scholar
Toro, M., Barragán, C., Ovilo, C., Rodrigañez, J., Rogriguez, C. and Silió, L. 2002. Estimation of coancestry in Iberian pigs using molecular markers. Conservation Genetics 3: 309–320.Google Scholar
Toro, M. and Nieto, B. 1984. A simple method for increasing the response to artificial selection. Genetical Research 69: 145–158.Google Scholar
Toro, M. and Perez-Enciso, M. 1990. Optimization of selection response under restricted inbreeding. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 22: 93–107.Google Scholar
Villanueva, B., Dekkers, J.C.M., Woolliams, J.A. and Settar, P. 2002a. Maximising genetic gain with QTL information and control of inbreeding. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. CD-ROM communication no. 22-18.Google Scholar
Villanueva, B., Pong-Wong, R., Grundy, B. and Woolliams, J.A. 1999. Potential benefit from using an identified major gene and BLUP evaluation with truncation and optimal selection. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 31: 115–133.Google Scholar
Villanueva, B., Pong-Wong, R. and Woolliams, J.A. 2002b. Marker assisted selection with optimised contributions of the candidates to selection. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 34: 679–703.Google Scholar
Villanueva, B. and Woolliams, J.A. 1997. Optimization of breeding programmes under index selection and constrained inbreeding, Genetical Research, Cambridge 69: 145–158.Google Scholar
Villanueva, B., Woolliams, J.A. and Simm, G. 1994. Strategies for controlling rates of inbreeding in MOET nucleus schemes for beef cattle. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 26: 517–535.Google Scholar
Visscher, P.M., Smith, D. and Hall, S.J.G. 2001. A viable herd of genetically uniform cattle. Nature 409: 303.Google Scholar
Weigel, K.A. and Lin, S.W. 2002. Controlling inbreeding by constraining the average relationship between parents of young bulls entering AI progeny test programs. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 2376–2383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weller, J.I. 2001. Quantitative trait loci analysis in animals. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Woolliams, J.A., Pong-Wong, R. and Villanueva, B. 2002. Strategic optimisation of short- and long-term gain and inbreeding in MAS and non-MAS schemes. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. CD-ROM communication no. 23-02.Google Scholar
Woolliams, J.A. and Thompson, R. 1994. A theory of genetic contributions. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, vol.19, University of Guelph, Canada, pp.127–134.Google Scholar
Wray, N.R. and Goddard, M.E. 1994. Increasing long-term response to selection. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 26: 431–451.Google Scholar
Wray, N.R. and Hill, W.G. 1989. Asymptotic rates of response from index selection. Animal Production 49: 217–227.Google Scholar