Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:58:56.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Future trends in Animal Breeding due to new genetic technologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2011

M. A. Toro
M. A. Toro*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, ETS Ingenieros Agrónomos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The Darwin theory of evolution by natural selection is based on three principles: (a) variation; (b) inheritance; and (c) natural selection. Here, I take these principles as an excuse to review some topics related to the future research prospects in Animal Breeding. With respect to the first principle I describe two forms of variation different from mutation that are becoming increasingly important: variation in copy number and microRNAs. With respect to the second principle I comment on the possible relevance of non-mendelian inheritance, the so-called epigenetic effects, of which the genomic imprinting is the best characterized in domestic species. Regarding selection principle I emphasize the importance of selection for social traits and how this could contribute to both productivity and animal welfare. Finally, I analyse the impact of molecular biology in Animal Breeding, the achievements and limitations of quantitative trait locus and classical marker-assisted selection and the future of genomic selection.

Keywords

animal breedingDarwingenetic technologiesimprinting
Type
Full Paper
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 1 , Issue 3: Darwin Symposium: EAAP Annual Meeting Barcelona, Spain – Tuesday 25th August 2009 , 06 January 2011 , pp. 546 - 557
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

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

Alfonso, L 2005. Use of meta-analysis to combine candidate gene association studies: application to study the relationship between the ESR PvuII polymorphism and sow litter size. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 37, 417–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, L, Haley, CS, Ellegren, H, Knott, SA, Johansson, M, Andersson, K, Andersson-Eklund, L, Edfors-Lilja, I, Fredholm, M, Hansson, I, Håkansson, J, Lundström, K 1994. Genetic mapping of quantitative trait loci for growth and fatness in pigs. Science 263, 1771–1774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arango, J, Misztal, I, Tsuruta, S, Culbertson, M, Herring, W 2005. Estimation of variance components including competitive effects of Large White growing gilts. Journal of Animal Science 83, 1241–1246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Axelrod, R, Hamilton, WD 1981. The evolution of cooperation. Science 211, 1390–1396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijma, P, Wade, MJ 2008. The joint effects of kin, multilevel selection and indirect genetic effects on response to genetic selection. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 21, 1175–1188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijma, P, Muir, WM, Van Arendonk, JAM 2007a. Multilevel selection 1: quantitative genetics of inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175, 277–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bijma, P, Muir, WM, Ellen, ED, Wolf, JB, Van Arendonk, JAM 2007b. Multilevel selection 2: estimating the genetic parameters determining inheritance and response to selection. Genetics 175, 289–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brichette, I, Reyero, MI, García, C 2001. A genetic analysis of intraspecific competition for growth in mussel cultures. Aquaculture 192, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantet, RJC, Cappa, EP 2008. On identifiability of (co)variance components in animal models with competition effect. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 124, 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cappa, EP, Cantet, RJC 2006. Bayesian inference for normal multiple-trait individual-tree models with missing records via full conjugate Gibbs. Canadian Journal of Forest Research-Revue Canadienne de Recherche Forestiere 36, 1276–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clop, A, Marcq, F, Takeda, H, Pirottin, D, Tordoir, X, Bibé, B, Bouix, J, Caiment, F, Elsen, JM, Eychenne, F, Larzul, C, Laville, E, Meish, F, Milenkovic, D, Tobin, J, Charlier, C, Georges, M 2006. A mutation creating a potential illegitimate microRNA target site in the myostatin gene affects muscularity in sheep. Nature Genetics 38, 813–818.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, JV, Muir, WM 1989. Fearful and associated responses of caged White Leghorn hens: genetic parameter estimates. Poultry Science 68, 1040–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Koning, D, Hocking, -J 2007. Marker-assisted selection: current status and future perspectives in crops, livestock, forestry and fish. FAO, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department, pp. 185–198.Google Scholar
Dekkers, JCM 2004. Commercial application of marker- and gene-assisted selection in livestock: strategies and lessons. Journal of Animal Sciences 82, E313–E328.Google ScholarPubMed
Ellen, ED, Muir, WM, Teuscher, F, Bijma, P 2007. Genetic improvement of traits affected by interactions among individuals: sib selection schemes. Genetics 176, 489–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellen, ED, Visscher, J, van Arendonk, JAM, Bijma, P 2008. Survival of Laying Hens: genetic parameters for direct and associative effects in three purebred layer lines. Poultry Science 87, 233–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estelle, J, Mercade, A, Noguera, JL, Perez-Enciso, M, Ovilo, C, Sanchez, A, Folch, JM 2005. Effect of the porcine IGF2-intron3–G3072A substitution in an outbred Large White population and in an Iberian Landrace cross. Journal of Animal Science 83, 2723–2728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fadista, J, Nygaard, M, Holm, LE, Thomsen, B, Bendixen, C 2008. A snapshot of CNVs in the pig genome. PLoS One 3, e3916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flint, APF, Woolliams, JA 2008. Precision animal breeding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363, 573–590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
García, C, Toro, MA 1990. Individual and group selection for productivity in Tribolium castaneum. Theoretical Applied Genetics 79, 256–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
García, C, Toro, MA 1992. Sib competition in Tribolium: a test of the elbow-room model. Heredity 68, 529–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, C, Toro, MA 1993. Larval competition and genetic diversity in Tribolium castaneum. Genetics Selection Evolution 25, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georges, M 2007. Mapping, fine mapping, and molecular dissection of quantitative trait loci in domestic animals. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 8, 131–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Georges, M, Massey, JM 1991. Velogenetics, or the synergistic use of marker assisted selection and germ-line manipulation. Theriogenology 35, 151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georges, M, Charlier, C, Smit, M, Davis, E, Shay, T, Tordoir, X, Takeda, H, Caiment, F, Cockett, N 2004. Toward molecular understanding of polar overdominance at the ovine callipyge locus. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 69, 477–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Georges, M, Nielsen, D, Mackinnon, M, Mishra, A, Okimoto, R, Pasquino, AT, Sargeant, LS, Soerensen, A, Steele, MR, Zhao, X, Womack, JE, Hoeschele, I 1995. Mapping QTL controlling milk production in dairy cattle by exploiting progeny testing. Genetics 139, 907–920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gianola, D, de los Campos, G 2008. Inferring genetic values for quantitative traits non-parametrically. Genetics Research 90, 525–540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gianola, D, Fernando, RL, Stella, A 2006. Genomic-assisted prediction of genetic value with semiparametric procedures. Genetics 173, 1761–1776.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, ME, Hayes, BJ 2009. Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes. Nature Reviews Genetics 10, 381–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
González-Recio, O, Gianola, D, Long, N, Weigel, KA, Rosa, GJM, Avendaño, S 2008. Nonparametric methods for incorporating genomic information into genetic evaluations: an application to mortality in broilers. Genetics 178, 2305–2313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodnight, CJ, Stevens, L 1997. Experimental studies of group selection: what do they tell us about group selection in nature? American Naturalist 150, s59–s79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, RD 2009. ASAS Centennial Paper: future needs in animal breeding and genetics. Journal of Animal Science 87, 793–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffing, B 1967. Selection in reference to biological groups. I. Individual and group selection applied to populations of unordered groups. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 20, 127–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffing, B 1968a. Selection in reference to biological groups. II. Consequences of selection in groups of one size when evaluated in groups of a different size. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 21, 1163–1170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffing, B 1968b. Selection in reference to biological groups. III. Generalized results of individual and group selection in terms of parent-offspring covariances. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 21, 1171–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffing, B 1969. Selection in reference to biological groups. IV. Application of selection index theory. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 22, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffing, B 1976a. Selection in reference to biological groups. V. Analysis of full-sib groups. Genetics 82, 703–722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffing, B 1976b. Selection in reference to biological groups. VI. Use of extreme forms of nonrandom groups to increase selection efficiency. Genetics 82, 723–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffing, B 1981a. A theory of natural-selection incorporating interaction among individuals. I. The modeling process. Journal of Theoretical Biology 89, 635–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffing, B 1981b. A theory of natural-selection incorporating interaction among individuals. II. Use of related groups. Journal of Theoretical Biology 89, 659–677.Google ScholarPubMed
Haley, C, de Koning, DJ 2006. Genetical genomics in livestock: potentials and pitfalls. Animal Genetics 37 (suppl. 1), 10–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haley, C, Visscher, P 1998. Strategies to utilize marker-quantitative trait loci associations. Journal of Dairy Science 81 (suppl. 2), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jansen, RC, Nap, J 2001. Genetical genomics: the added value from segregation. Trends in Genetics 17, 388–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, KS, Larsen, N, Short, T, Plastow, G, Rothschild, MF 2000. A missense variant of the porcine melanocortin-4 receptor (MC4R) gene is associated with fatness, growth, and feed intake traits. Mammalian Genome 1, 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, GE, Van Tassel, CP, Sonstegard, TS, Li, RW, Alexander, LJ, Keele, JW, Matukumalli, LK, Smith, TP, Gasbarre, LC 2008. Detection of germline and somatic copy number variations in cattle. Development Biology (Basel) 132, 231–237.Google ScholarPubMed
Lee, RC, Feinbaum, RL, Ambros, V 1993. The C. elegans heterochronic gen lin-4 encodes small RNAs with antisense complementarity to lin-14. Cell 75, 843–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Suárez, C, Toro, MA, García, C 1993. Genetic heterogeneity increases viability in competing groups of Drosophila hydei. Evolution 47, 977–981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, MJ, Perez-Tome, JM, Toro, MA 1988. Competition and genotypic variability in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 60, 119–123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maynard Smith, J 1997. Evolutionary genetics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, THE, Goddard, ME 2004. Mapping multiple QTL using linkage disequilibrium and linkage analysis information and multitrait data. Genetics Selection Evolution 36, 261–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, THE, Hayes, BJ, Goddard, ME 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819–1829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moav, R, Wohlfarth, GW 1976. Two-way selection for growth in the common carp (Cyprinus carpio, L.). Genetics 82, 83–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, T, Haig, D 1991. Genomic imprinting in mammalian development: a parental tug-of-war. Trends in Genetics 7, 45–49.Google ScholarPubMed
Muir, WM 1985. Relative efficiency of selection for performance of birds housed in colony cages based on production in single bird cages. Poultry Science 64, 2239–2247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, WM 1996. Group selection for adaptation to multiple-hen cages: selection program and direct responses. Poultry Science 75, 447–458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muir, WM 2005. Incorporation of competitive effects in forest tree or animal breeding programs. Genetics 170, 1247–1259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muir, WM, Craig, JV 1998. Improving animal well-being through genetic selection. Poultry Science 71, 1781–1788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muir, WM, Howard, RD 1999. Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect mating success: sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96, 13853–13856.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez-Tome, JM, Toro, MA 1982. Competition of similar and non-similar genotypes. Nature 229, 153–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, M, Jacobson, C, Vaske, D, Tuggle, C, Wang, L, Short, T, Eckardt, G, Sasaki, S, Vincent, A, McLaren, D, Southwood, O, van der Steen, H, Mileham, A, Plastow, G 1996. The estrogen receptor locus is associated with a major gene influencing litter size in pigs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93, 201–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonstegard, TS, Van Tassell, CP 2004. Bovine genomics update: making a cow jump over the moon. Genetical Research 84, 3–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Spötter, A, Distl, O 2006. Genetic approaches to the improvement of fertility traits in the pig. The Veterinary Journal 172, 234–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trivers, RL 1971. The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology 46, 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eenennaam, AL, Li, J, Thallman, RM, Quaas, RL, Dikeman, ME, Gill, CA, Franke, DE, Thomas, MG 2007. Validation of commercial DNA tests for quantitative beef quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 85, 891–900.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Laere, AS, Nguyen, M, Braunschweig, M, Nezer, C, Collette, C, Moreau, L, Archibald, AL, Haley, CS, Buys, N, Tally, M, Andersson, G, Georges, M, Andersson, L 2003. A regulatory mutation in IGF2 causes a major QTL effect on muscle growth in the pig. Nature 425, 832–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Vleck, LD, Cassady, JP 2005. Unexpected estimates of variance components with a true model containing genetic competition effects. Journal of Animal Science 83, 68–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Vleck, LD, Cassady, JP 2006. Unexpected estimates of variance components with a true model containing genetic competition effects. Journal of Animal Science 83, 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Vleck, LD, Cundiff, LV, Koch, RM 2007. Effect of competition on gain in feedlot bulls from Hereford selection lines. Journal of Animal Science 85, 1625–1633.Google ScholarPubMed
Wade, MJ 1976. Group selection among laboratory populations of Tribolium. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 73, 4604–4607.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wade, MJ 1977. An experimental study of group selection. Evolution 31, 134–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolf, JB 2003. Genetic architecture and evolutionary constraint when the environment contains genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 100, 4655–4660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xie, SS, Huang, TH, Shen, Y, Li, XY, Zhang, XX, Zhu, MJ, Qin, HY, Zhao, SH 2009. Identification and characterization of microRNAs from porcine skeletal muscle. Animal Genetics, Early View.Google ScholarPubMed