Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T10:48:32.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response from marker-assisted selection when various proportions of animals are marker typed: a multiple trait simulation study relevant to the sheepmeat industry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

K. Marshall ,
J. Henshall  and
H. J. J. van der Werf
K. Marshall*
Affiliation:
Animal Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
J. Henshall
Affiliation:
Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia
H. J. J. van der Werf
Affiliation:
Animal Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
*
† E-mail: kmarsha2@metz.une.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

A simulation study, based on a closed sheepmeat breeding nucleus and incorporating marker-assisted selection (MAS), was used to evaluate response when different proportions of animals were marker typed. Two traits were included in the simulation: trait 1, a production trait where phenotypes were available prior to selection, and trait 2, a carcass trait where phenotypic information was not available on breeding animals. Selection on an index which comprised estimated breeding values (EBVs) for both traits was possible by calculating EBVs for trait 2 as the sum of EBVs for a polygenic component, obtained from a genetic regression, and EBVs for a major gene component, obtained by inferring genotypes at a major gene locus from a linked marker locus. Different marker typing strategies were evaluated. These differed in the criteria used to select progeny for typing, and in the proportion of male and female progeny selected. Typing progeny that were likely to be used as a breeding animal, but excluding those whose marker genotype could be predicted with reasonable certainty, was an efficient genotyping strategy. Close to maximum gain at the major gene locus was achieved when only a proportion of animals were marker typed (for example 90% of maximum response was achieved with a little over one-third of the selection candidates marker typed). This indicates the potential for substantial savings in relation to the cost of marker typing in commercial breeding flocks.

Keywords

marker-assisted selectionquantitative trait locisheepmeat
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 223 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2002

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

Bovenhuis, H., Arendonk, J. A. M. van, Davis, G., Elsen, J.-M., Haley, C. S., Hill, W. G., Baret, P. V., Hetzel, D. J. S. and Nicholas, F. W. 1997. Detection and mapping of quantitative trait loci in farm animals. Livestock Production Science 52: 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. P. and Denise, S. K. 1998. The impact of genetic markers on selection. Journal of Animal Science 76: 2331–2339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dekkers, J. C. M. 1999. Breeding values for identified quantitative trait loci under selection. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 31: 421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fournet, F., Elsen, J. M., Barbieri, M. E. and Manfredi, E. 1997. Effect of including major gene information in mass selection: a stochastic simulation in a small population. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 29: 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henshall, J. M., Tier, B. and Kerr, R. J. 2002. Estimating genotypes with independently sampled descent graphs. Genetical Research In press.Google Scholar
Hospital, F., Moreau, L., Lacoudre, F., Charcosset, A. and Gallais, A. 1997. More on the efficiency of marker assisted selection. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 95: 1181–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinghorn, B. P. 1999. Use of segregation analysis to reduce genotyping costs. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 116: 175–180.CrossRefGoogle 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 Inc., Sunderland, USA.Google Scholar
Mackinnon, M. J. and Georges, M. A. J. 1998. Marker-assisted preselection of young dairy sires prior to progeny-testing. Livestock Production Science 54: 229–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwissen, T. H. E. and Goddard, M. E. 1996. The use of marker haplotypes in animal breeding schemes. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 28: 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwissen, T. H. E. and Goddard, M. E. 1999. Marker assisted estimation of breeding values when marker information is missing on many animals. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 31: 375–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mrode, R. A. 1996. Linear models for the prediction of animal breeding values. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soller, M. and Medjugorac, I. 1999. A successful marriage: making the transition from quantitative trait locus mapping to marker-assisted selection. In From Jay Lush to genomics: visions for animal breeding and genetics (ed. Dekkers, J. C. M. Lamont, S. J. and Rothschild, M. F.), pp. 85–96. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Spelman, R. and Garrick, D. 1997. Utilisation of marker assisted selection in a commercial dairy cow population. Livestock Production Science 47: 139–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spelman, R. J. and Bovenhuis, H. 1998. Moving from QTL experimental results to the utilization of QTL in breeding programs. Animal Genetics 29: 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, T., Fernando, R. L., Beek, S. van der, Grossman, M. and Arendonk, J. A. M. van. 1995. Covariance between relatives for a marked quantitative trait locus. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 27: 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar