Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-04T21:06:35.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The genetic basis of response in mouse lines divergently selected for body weight or fat content. II. The contribution of genes with a large effect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Roel F. Veerkamp ,
Chris S. Haley ,
Sara A. Knott  and
Ian M. Hastings
Roel F. Veerkamp*
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behaviourial Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, Scotland AFRC Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, EH25 9PS, Scotland
Chris S. Haley
Affiliation:
AFRC Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, EH25 9PS, Scotland
Sara A. Knott
Affiliation:
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland
Ian M. Hastings
Affiliation:
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland
*
* Corresponding author

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Gene action underlying selection responses has been studied using crossbreeding. Maximum likelihood based segregation analysis has been presented for analysing backcross data for the presence of genes with a large effect. Two sets of divergently selected lines (P-lines for body weight and F-lines for fat content) were reciprocally crossed and the F1s were crossed to the high and low lines to produce all possible backcrosses. Earlier analysis had shown that the difference in body weight at 10 weeks (n = 595) between the high and low P-lines was largely (75–80%) explained by autosomal, additive genes with the remainder explained by additive genes on the X chromosome. Maximum likelihood segregation analysis suggested the presence of a major effect on the X chromosome, but as there was only one round of recombination between the X chromosomes in the forming of the backcrosses, linked genes on the X chromosome could have acted together to give the appearance of a single major gene. The difference in fat content between the F-lines (n = 578) could be explained by autosomal genes of largely additive effect. Segregation analysis suggested the presence of a major gene with complete dominance, but this was attributed to a relationship between the mean and the variance: transformation of the data resulted in only polygenic additive genes being of importance. This study concluded that maximum likelihood based analysis and crosses between selected lines provide a powerful means for studying the gene action underlying responses to selection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , December 1993 , pp. 177 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

Beniwal, B. K., Hastings, I. M., Thompson, R. & Hill, W. G. (1992). Estimation of changes in genetic parameters in selected lines of mice using REML with an animal model. Heredity 64, 352–360.Google Scholar
Elston, R. C. & Stewart, J. (1973). The analysis of quantitative traits for simple genetic models from parental, F1 and backcross data. Genetics 73, 695–711.Google Scholar
Elston, R. C. (1984). The genetic analysis of quantitative trait differences between two homozygous lines. Genetics 108, 733–744.Google Scholar
Fain, P. R. (1978). Characteristics of simple sibship variance for detection of major loci and application to height, weight and spatial performance. Annals of Human Genetics 42, 109–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haley, C. S., Lee, G. J., Webb, R. & Knott, S. A. (1993). Evidence on the genetic control of LH release in response to GnRH from crosses between selected lines of sheep. Livestock Production Science (in press).Google Scholar
Hastings, I. M. & Hill, W. G. (1989). A note on the effects of different selection criteria on carcass composition in mice. Animal Production 48, 317–320.Google Scholar
Hastings, I. M. & Veerkamp, R. F. (1993). The genetic basis of response in mouse lines divergently selected for body weight or fat content. I. The relative contributions of autosomal and sex-linked genes. Genetical Research 62, 169–175.Google Scholar
Karlin, S., Williams, P., Jensen, S. & Farquhar, J. (1981). Genetic analysis of the Stanford LRC family study data. I. Structure exploratory data analysis of height and weight measurements. American Journal of Epidemiology 113, 307–325.Google Scholar
Le Roy, P. (1989). Méthodes de détection de gènes majeurs; application aux animaux domestiques. Orsay no. d'ordre: 857. Université de Paris-sud, Centre d'Orsay.Google Scholar
Meyer, K. (1989). Restricted maximum likelihood to estimate variance components for animal models with several random effects using a derivative free algorithm. Genet. Sel. Evol. 21, 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K. & Hill, W. G. (1991). Mixed model analysis of a selection experiment for food intake in mice. Genetical Research 57, 71–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Numerical Algorithms Group (1988). The NAG Fortran library manual. Mark 13, NAG ltd.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, R. F. (1991). An investigation for the presence of a major gene in mouse lines selected on body weight. Thesis. W.A.U. Dep. of Animal Breeding P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Wilks, S. S. (1938). The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypothesis. Annuals of Mathematics and Statistics 9, 60–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar