Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T08:47:14.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring major gene-marker phase-typing strategies in marker-assisted selection schemes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2016

K. Marshall ,
J. H. J. van der Werf  and
J. Henshall
K. Marshall*
Affiliation:
School of Rural Science and Agriculture, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
J. H. J. van der Werf
Affiliation:
School of Rural Science and Agriculture, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
J. Henshall
Affiliation:
CSIRO Livestock Industries, FD McMaster Laboratory Chiswick, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia
*
†E-mail:kmarsha2@metz.une.edu.au
Get access

Abstract

Major gene-marker phase is generally assumed to be family specific. This has the consequence in relation to marker-assisted selection (MAS) that phase information about each family may need to be collected through progeny testing, which could represent a substantial cost. This paper examines the effect of different policies in relation to major gene-marker phase-typing on response to MAS. The different policies considered varied in the criteria by which individuals were selected for phase-typing, the number of individuals phase-typed, and the frequency of establishing phase. Stochastic simulation of a closed breeding nucleus, with either high or low levels of inbreeding and undergoing selection for two traits, was utilized. Total response under MAS was lower than that under genotypic assisted selection (GAS) for all phase-typing policies. For example, additional gains of 70% under GAS, achieved in year 1 and in comparison with non-MAS, corresponded to additional gains of 43% and 15% under MAS for linkage distances of 1 cM and 20 cM, respectively. The different phase-typing policies examined in relation to MAS did not have any effect on total response, although there were small effects on major gene response. For breeding nuclei with either level of inbreeding, higher major gene response was achieved when phase-typed sires were selected on the basis of high ranking for genetic merit rather than connectivity to the other selection candidates. Further, increasing the number of males phase-typed within any year did not increase the rate of major gene response, although phase-typing in more years was favourable for the large linkage distance. An overall conclusion of this study is that additional gain could be achieved under MAS within a closed nucleus when progeny testing to determine major gene-marker phase was limited to from one to a few individuals.

Keywords

linkageselectionquantitative trait locisheepmeat industry
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
Animal Science , Volume 78 , Issue 2 , April 2004 , pp. 213 - 227
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

Beek, S. van der, Arendonk, J. A. M. van and Groen, A. F. 1995. Power of two- and three- generation QTL mapping experiments in an outbred population containing full-sib or half-sib families. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 91: 1115–1136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleck, O., McGrath, J. A. and South, A. P. 2001. Searching for candidate genes in the new millenium. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology 26: 279–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardon, L. R. and Bell, J. I. 2001. Association study designs for complex diseases. Nautre Reviews Genetics 2: 91–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coppieters, W., Blott, S., Farnir, F., Grisart, B., Riquet, J. and Georges, M. 1999. From phenotype to genotype: towards positional cloning of quantitative trait loci in livestock. In From Jay Lush to genomics: visions for animal breeding and genetics (ed. J. C. M., Dekkers Lamont, S. J. and Rothschild, M. F.), pp. 70–76. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Crawford, A. M. 2001. A review of QTL experiments in sheep. Proceedings of the Association of Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 14: 33–38.Google Scholar
Deng, H. W., Chen, W. M. and Recker, R. R. 2000. QTL fine mapping by measuring and testing for Hardy-Weinberg and linkage disequilibrium at a series of linked marker loci in extreme samples of populations. American Journal of Human Genetics 66: 1027–1045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1989. Introduction to quantitative genetics, third edition. Longman, Harlow, Essex.Google Scholar
Farnir, F., Grisart, B., Coppieters, W., Riquet, J., Berzi, P., Cambisano, N., Karim, L., Mni, M., Moisio, S., Simon, P., Wagenaar, D., Vilkki, J. and Georges, M. 2002. Simultaneous mining of linkage and linkage disequilibrium to fine map quantitative trait loci in outbred half-sib pedigrees: revisiting the location of a quantitative trait locus with major effect on milk production on bovine chromosome 14. Genetics 161: 275–287.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernando, R. L. and Grossman, M. 1989. Marker assisted selection using best linear unbiased prediction. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 21: 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flint, J. and Mott, R. 2001. Finding the molecular basis of quantitative traits: success and pitfalls. Nature Review Genetics 2: 437–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Goddard, M. E. 1992. A mixed model for analysis of data on multiple genetic markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 83: 878–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grisart, B., Coppieters, W., Farnir, F., Karim, L., Ford, C., Berzi, P., Cambisano, N., Mni, M., Reid, S., Simon, P., Spelman, R., Georges, M. and Snell, R. 2002. Positional candidate cloning of a QTL in dairy cattle: identification of a missense mutation in the bovine DGAT1 gene with major effect on milk yield and composition. Genome Research 12: 222–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grobet, L., Martin, L. J. R., Poncelet, D., Pirottin, D., Brouwers, B., Riquet, J., Schoeberlein, A., Dunner, S., Menissier, F., Massabanda, J., Fries, R., Hanset, R. and Georges, M. 1997. A deletion in the bovine myostatin gene causes the double-muscled phenotype in cattle. Nature Genetics 17: 71–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haley, C. S. and Visscher, P. M. 1998. Strategies to utilize marker quantitative trait loci associations. Journal of Dairy Science 81: 85–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henshall, J. M., Tier, B. and Kerr, R. J. 2001. Estimating genotypes with independently sampled descent graphs. Genetical Research 78: 281–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Kashi, Y., Hallerman, E. and Soller, M. 1990. Marker-assisted selection of candidate bulls for progeny testing programmes. Animal Production 51: 63–74.Google Scholar
Kerr, R. J., Chen, Y. and Moran, C. 2001. A review of quantitative trait loci in pigs. Proceedings of the Association of Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 14: 23–32.Google Scholar
Kerr, R. J. and Kinghorn, B. P. 1996. An efficient algorithm for segregation analysis in large populations. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 113: 457–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinghorn, B. P. 1998. Managing genetic change under operational and cost constraints. Proceedings of the 36th national congress of the South African Association of Animal Science , pp. 9–16. University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
Kinghorn, B. P., Shepherd, R. K. and Woolliams, J. A. 1999. An index of estimated breeding value, parental coancestry and progeny inbreeding to help maximize genetic gain. Proceedings of the Association of The Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 13: 412–415.Google Scholar
Lande, R. and Thompson, R. 1990. Efficiency of marker assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics 124: 743–756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Marshall, K., Henshall, J., Banks, R. G. and Werf, J. H. J. van der. 1999. Finding major gene effects in Australian meat sheep – feasibility study for a Texel dataset. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 13: 86–89.Google Scholar
Marshall, K., Henshall, J. and Werf, J. H. J. van der. 2002a. Response from marker assisted selection when various proportions of animals are marker typed: a multiple trait simulation study relevant to the sheepmeat industry. Animal Science 74: 223–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, K., Henshall, J. and Werf, J. H. J. van der. 2002b. The effect of the level of connectivity within a breeding nucleus on response from marker assisted selection. Proceedings of the seventh world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, CD-Rom communicaton no. 22-16.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 1997. Estimation of effects of quantitative trait loci in large complex pedigrees. Genetics 146: 409–416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, T. H. E, and Goddard, M. E. 2000. Fine mapping of quantitative trait loci using linkage disequilibria with closely linked marker loci. Genetics 155: 421–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milan, D., Joen, J. T., Looft, C., Amarger, V., Robie, A., Thelander, M., Rogel-Gaillard, C., Paul, S., Iannuccelli, N., Rask, L., Ronne, H., Lundstrom, K., Reinsch, N., Gellin, J., Kalm, E., Le Roy, P., Chardon, P. and Andersson, L. 2000. A mutation in PRKAG3 associated with excess glycogen content in pig skeletal muscle. Science 288: 1248–1251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, C. A., Cullen, N. G., Hickey, S. M., Crawford, A. M., Hyndman, D. O., Bottema, C. D. A. and Pitchford, W. S. 2001. Progress in DNA marker studies of beef carcass composition and meat quality in New Zealand and Australia. Proceedings of the Association of Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 14: 17–22.Google Scholar
Pong-Wong, R., Villanueva, B. and Woolliams, J. A. 2002. Comparison of direct and marker-assisted selected with optimized contributions. Proceedings of the seventh world congress on genetics applied to livestock production. CD-Rom communicaton no. 22-17.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
Ruane, J. and Colleau, J. J. 1996. Marker assisted selection for a sex-limited character in a nucleus breeding population. Journal of Dairy Science 79: 1666–1678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. and Simpson, S. P. 1986. The use of genetic polymorphisms in livestock improvement. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 103: 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. and Smith, D. B. 1993. The need for close linkages in marker-assisted selection for economic merit in livestock. Animal Breeding Abstracts 61: 198–204.Google 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. J. C. M. Dekkers, S. J. Lamont and Rothschild, M. F.), pp. 85–96. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
Spelman, R. J., Coppieters, W., Grisart, B., Blott, S. and Georges, M. 2001. Review of QTL mapping in the New Zealand and Dutch dairy cattle populations. Proceedings of the Association of Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 14: 11–16.Google Scholar
Spelman, R. J., Garrick, D. J. and Arendonk, J. A. M. van. 1999. Utilisation of genetic variation by marker assisted selection in commercial dairy cattle populations. Livestock Production Science 59: 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tier, B. and Henshall, J. 2001. A sampling algorithm for segregation analysis. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 33: 587–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Villanueva, B., Pong-Wong, R., Grundy, B. and Woolliams, J. A. 1999. Potential benefit from using an identified major gene in BLUP evaluation with truncation and optimal selection. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 31: 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villanueva, B., Pong-Wong, R. and Woolliams, J. A. 2002. Marker assisted selection with optimised contributions of the candidates to selection. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 34: 679–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 251–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weller, J. I., Kashi, Y. and Soller, M. 1990. Power of daughter and granddaughter desings for determining linkage between marker loci and quantitative trait loci in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 73: 2525–2537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolliams, J. A. and Thompson, R. 1994. A theory of genetic contributions. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, vol. 19, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W. and Smith, C. 1992. Computer simulation of marker-assisted selection utilizing linkage disequilibrium. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 83: 813–820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed