Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T14:05:38.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marker assisted selection for genetic improvement of animal populations when a single QTL is marked

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

J. Ruane  and
J. J. Colleau
J. Ruane
Affiliation:
Station de Génétique Quantitative et Appliquée, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Centre de Jouy-en-Josas, F-78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France
J. J. Colleau*
Affiliation:
Station de Génétique Quantitative et Appliquée, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Centre de Jouy-en-Josas, F-78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France
*
* Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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 Monte Carlo simulation study to evaluate the benefits of marker assisted selection (MAS) in small populations with one marked bi-allelic quantitative trait locus (QTL) is described. In the base generation, linkage phase equilibrium between the markers, QTL and polygenes was assumed and frequencies of 0·5 for the two QTL alleles were used. Six discrete generations of selection for a single character measured on both sexes followed. An additive genetic model was used with the QTL positioned midway between two highly polymorphic markers. Schemes were simulated with a distance of 10 cM between the QTL and either of the two markers and with the QTL explaining 1/8 of the total genetic variance in the base generation. Values of 0·5, 0·25 or 0·1 were assumed for the heritability. Eight males and 16, 32 or 64 females were selected each generation with each dam producing four sons and four daughters as candidates for the next generation. Animals were evaluated with a conventional BLUP animal model or with a model using marker information. MAS resulted in substantially higher QTL responses (4–54%), especially with low heritabilities, than conventional BLUP but lower polygenic responses (up to 4%) so that the overall effect on the total genetic response, although in the majority of cases favourable, was relatively small. With QTLs of larger size (explaining 25% of the genetic variance) comparable results were found. When the distance between the QTL and the markers was reduced to 2 cM, genetic responses were increased very slightly with a heritability of 0·5 whereas with a heritability of 0·1 responses were increased by up to 10%, compared with conventional BLUP. Results emphasize that MAS should be most useful for lowly heritable traits and that once QTLs for such traits have been identified the search for closely linked polymorphic markers should be intensified.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 66 , Issue 1 , August 1995 , pp. 71 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

References

Andersson, L., Haley, C. S., Ellegren, H., Knott, S. A., Johansson, M., Andersson, K., Andersson-Eklund, L., Edfors-Lilja, I., Fredholm, M., Hansson, I., Hakansson, J., & Lundstrom, K. (1994). Genetic mapping of quantitative trait loci for growth and fatness in pigs. Science 263, 1771–1774.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beattie, C. W. (1994). Livestock genome maps. Trends in Genetics 10, 334–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bink, M. C. A. M., & Van Arendonk, J. A. M. (1994). Marker-assisted prediction of breeding values in dairy cattle populations. Proceedings of the 5 th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Guelph, 21, 233–236.Google Scholar
Bishop, M. D., Kappes, S. M., Keele, J. W., Stone, R. T., Sunden, S. L. F., Hawkins, G. A., Toldo, S. S., Fries, R., Grosz, M. D., Yoo, J., & Beattie, C. (1994). A genetic linkage map for cattle. Genetics 136, 619–639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bulmer, M. G. (1971). The effect of selection on genetic variability. American Naturalist 105, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Boer, I. J. M., & Hoeschele, I. (1993). Genetic evaluation methods for populations with dominance and inbreeding. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 86, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. (1989). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 3rd edn. Harlow, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Fernando, R. L., & Grossman, M. (1989). Marker assisted selection using best linear unbiased prediction. Genetics, Selection and Evolution 21, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. P. (1994). Short-term gain at the expense of long-term response with selection of identified loci. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Guelph, 21, 201–204.Google Scholar
Gimelfarb, A., & Lande, R. (1994). Simulation of marker assisted selection in hybrid populations. Genetical Research 63, 39–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goddard, M. E. (1992). A mixed model for analyses of data on multiple genetic markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 83, 878–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haldane, J. B. S. (1919). The combination of linkage values and the calculation of distances between loci of linked factors. Journal of Genetics 8, 299–309.Google Scholar
Hospital, F., Chevalet, C., & Mulsant, P. (1992). Using markers in gene introgression breeding programs. Genetics 132, 1199–1210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lande, R. (1975). The maintenance of genetic variability by mutation in a quantitative character with linked loci. Genetical Research 26, 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, R., & Thompson, R. (1990). Efficiency of marker assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics 124, 743–756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, T. H. E., & Van Arendonk, J. A. M. (1992). Potential improvements in rate of genetic gain from marker-assisted selection in dairy cattle breeding schemes. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 1651–1659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paterson, A. H., Lander, E. S., Hewitt, J. D., Petersen, S., Lincoln, S. E., & Tanksley, S. D. (1988). Resolution of quantitative traits into Mendelian factors by using a complete linkage map of restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Nature 335, 721–726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rohrer, G. A., Alexander, L. J., Keele, J. W., Smith, T. P., & Beattie, C. (1994). A microsatellite linkage map of the porcine genome. Genetics 136, 234–245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schaeffer, L. R., & Kennedy, B. W. (1986). Computing strategies for solving mixed model equations. Journal of Dairy Science 69, 575–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C., & Smith, D. B. (1993). The need for close linkages in marker-assisted selection for economic merit in livestock. Animal Breeding Abstracts 61, 197–204.Google Scholar
Soller, M. (1978). The use of loci associated with quantitative traits in dairy cattle improvement. Animal Production 27, 133–139.Google Scholar
Wang, T., Van der Beek, S., Fernando, R. L., & Grossman, M. (1991). Covariance between effects of marked QTL alleles. Journal of Animal Science 69, 202 (supplement).Google Scholar
Zhang, W., & Smith, C. (1992). Computer simulation of marker-assisted selection utilizing linkage disequilibrium. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 83, 813–820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, W., & Smith, C. (1993). Simulation of marker-assisted selection utilizing linkage disequilibrium: the effects of several additional factors. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 86, 492–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed