Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:42:59.689Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recurrent selection. II. An experimental study with mice and Drosophila

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

J. C. Bowman
J. C. Bowman
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh, 9
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

1. An experimental study has been made of recurrent selection to an inbred tester. A suitable inbred line is used as a tester parent, and selection is made within a non-inbred population on the individuals crossing performance with the tester line.

It is concluded that there are two situations in which recurrent selection could be profitably applied. Firstly, recurrent selection should, theoretically, be successful when applied to characters closely related to fitness which have little additive genetic variance and secondly, in cases where a character has already been subjected to individual or family selection and has reached a plateau level in that population.

2. The two experiments—i.e. recurrent selection for large litter size in mice and for low bristle number in Drosophila melanogaster—reported here are respectively an example of each of the above situations. In each experiment selection was made between males within the closed non-inbred population on the basis of the performance of their testcross progeny resulting from matings with inbred line females.

3. Initial generation hybrid performance in both experiments was not intermediate between parental performance levels and the divergence from intermediacy was away from the direction of selection.

4. In both experiments there was no evidence to suspect the presence of over dominance.

5. Response to selection was obtained in each experiment but this was close to or less than the expected response calculated on the assumption that all the variance between sires in crossing performance was additive genetic variance.

6. From these experiments it is not possible to draw any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of recurrent selection for exploiting overdominance. It is, how ever, a very inefficient way of exploiting additive genetic variance. It is suggested that more success might be obtained by careful choice of base population material used in recurrent selection.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , November 1962 , pp. 333 - 351
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

References

REFERENCES

Bell, A. E., Moore, C. H. & Warren, D. C. (1955). The evaluation of new methods for the improvement of quantitative characteristics. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 20, 197–212.Google Scholar
Bell, A. E. & Moore, C. H. (1958). Further comparisons of reciprocal recurrent selection with conventional methods of selection for the improvement of quantitative characteristics. Proc. Xth Int. Congr. Genet. II, 20–21.Google Scholar
Bowman, J. C. (1959). Selection for heterosis. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 27, 261–273.Google Scholar
Bowman, J. C. (1960). Recurrent selection. I. The detection of overdominance. Heredity, 14, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, J. C. & Falconer, D. S. (1960). Inbreeding depression and heterosis of litter size in mice. Genet. Res. 1, 262–274.Google Scholar
Butler, I. (1952). A study of size inheritance in the house mouse. II. Analysis of five preliminary crosses. Canad. J. Zool. 30, 154–171.Google Scholar
Clayton, G. A., Morris, J. A. & Robertson, A. (1957 a). An experimental check on quantitative genetic theory. I. Short-term responses to selection. J. Genet. 55, 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, G. A. & Robertson, A. (1957 b). An experimental check on quantitative genetical theory. II. The long-term effects of selection. J. Genet. 55, 152–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickerson, G. E. (1952). Inbred lines for heterosis tests? Chapter 21 of Heterosis, ed. by Gowen, J. W., Ames: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Eaton, O. N. (1941). Crosses between inbred strains of mice. J. Hered. 32, 393–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, O. N. (1953). Heterosis in the performance of mice. Genetics, 38, 609–629.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. (1955). Patterns of response in selection experiments with mice. Cold. Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 20, 178–196.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). The genetics of litter size in mice. J. cell. comp. Physiol. 56, Suppl. 1, 153–167.Google Scholar
Hull, F. H. (1945). Recurrent selection for specific combining ability in corn. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 37, 134–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, M. T. (1940). The segregation of genes affecting yield of grain in maize. J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 32, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lerner, I. M. (1950). Population Genetics and Animal Improvement. Cambridge: University Press. 342 pp.Google Scholar
Li, C. C. (1955). Population Genetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mason, R. W., Nicholson, H. H., Bogart, R. & Krueger, H. (1960). Predominance of hybrid losses or negative heterosis in mouse crosses. Biomet. Genet. I.V.B.S., London: Pergamon Press, p. 188.Google Scholar
Mather, K. & Harrison, B. J. (1949). The manifold effect of selection. Heredity, 3, 1–52, 131–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morris, J. A. (1954). The experimental evaluation of different breeding methods. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Rasmuson, M. (1956). Recurrent reciprocal selection. Results of three model experiments on Drosophila for improvement of quantitative characters. Hereditas, Lund, 42, 397–414.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. C. (1960). The effects on litter size of crossing lines of mice inbred without selection. Genet. Res. 1, 239–252.Google Scholar
Warwick, E. J. & Lewis, W. L. (1954). Growth and reproductive rates of mice produced by intercrossing inbreds and outbreds of three size groups. J. Hered. 45, 35–38.Google Scholar