Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-68ccn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T15:27:01.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rates of change of genetic parameters of body weight in selected mouse lines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

S. C. Heath ,
G. Bulfield ,
R. Thompson  and
P. D. Keightley
S. C. Heath*
Affiliation:
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland
G. Bulfield
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, Scotland
R. Thompson
Affiliation:
Roslin Institute (Edinburgh), Roslin, Midlothian EH25 9PS, Scotland
P. D. Keightley
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.

A method based on the animal model is described which allows the estimation of continuous changes in variance components over time using restricted maximum likelihood (REML). The method was applied to the analysis of a selection experiment in which a foundation population formed from a cross between two inbred strains of mice (C57BL/6J and DBA/2J) was divergently selected for 6 week body weight over 20 generations. The analysis suggested that there was an increase in phenotypic variance of about 50% in the low selected lines over the course of the experiment which was attributed to increases in the environmental and additive variance components. Variance changes in the High selected lines were generally smaller than in the Low lines, although there was an estimated 20% increase in the environmental variance. Simple models to explain these effects involving dominance, linkage and epistasis were explored. Testing which of these was responsible for the variance changes noted in this experiment (if any) is difficult, although the epistasis and dominance models require less stringent conditions than the linkage model, and the dominance model is supported by evidence of heterosis in the F1.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , August 1995 , pp. 19 - 25
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

References

Beniwal, B. K., Hastings, I. M., Thompson, R., & Hill, W. G., (1992). Estimation of changes in selected lines of mice using REML with an animal model. 1. Lean mass. Heredity 69, 352–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bryant, E. H., & Combs, L. M., (1986). The effect of an experimental bottleneck upon quantitative variation in the housefly. Genetics 114, 1191–1211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S., (1973). Replicated selection for body weight in mice. Genetical Research 21, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S., (1989). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 3rd edn.Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Goodnight, C. J., (1988). Epistasis and the effect of founder events on the additive genetic variance. Evolution 42, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G., (1972). Estimation of realised heritabilities from selection experiments. I. Divergent selection. Biometrics 28, 747–765.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G., & Caballero, A., (1992). Artificial selection experiments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23, 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, W. G., Caballero, A., & Keightley, P. D., (1994). Variation from spontaneous mutation for body size in the mouse. Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Vol. 19. University of Guelph, Guelph, pp. 67–70.Google Scholar
James, J. W., (1990). Selection theory versus selection results; a comparison. Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Vol. 13. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, pp. 195–204.Google Scholar
Keightley, P. D., & Bulfield, G., (1993). Detection of quantitative trait loci from frequency changes of marker alleles under selection. Genetical Research 62, 195–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keightley, P. D., & Hill, W., (1992). Quantitative genetic variation in body size of mice from new mutations. Genetics 131, 693–700.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. C., (1964). The interaction of selection and linkage. II. Optimum models. Genetics 50, 757–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacArthur, J. W., (1944). Genetics of body size and related characters. I. Selecting small and large races of the laboratory mouse. American Naturalist 78, 142–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K., (1941). Variation and selection of polygenic characters. Journal of Genetics 41, 159–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard, Smith J., (1989). Evolutionary Genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, K., (1988). DFREML — a set of programs to estimate variance components under an individual animal model. Journal of Dairy Science 71, 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, K., (1989). Restricted maximum likelihood to estimate variance components under an individual animal model with several random effects using a derivative-free algorithm. Génétique, Sélection et Évolution 23, 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
Meyer, K., & Hill, W. G., (1992). Approximation of sampling variances and confidence intervals for maximum likelihood estimates of variance components. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 109(4), 264–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahnefeld, G. W., Boylan, W. J., Comstock, R. E., & Singh, M., (1963). Mass selection for post-weaning growth in mice. Genetics 48, 1567–1583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheridan, A. K., (1988). Agreement between estimated and realised genetic parameters. Animal Breeding Abstracts 56, 877–889.Google Scholar
Wright, S., (1969). Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Vol. 2, The Theory of Gene Frequencies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar