Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T07:15:53.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response to selection for increased pupa weight in Tribolium castaneum as related to population structure*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Alan J. Katz  and
Franklin D. Enfield
Alan J. Katz
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Department of Genetics and Cell Biology, St Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.55108
Franklin D. Enfield
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota, Department of Genetics and Cell Biology, St Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.55108
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.

The effectiveness of selection for increased pupa weight in Tribolium was compared for three different selection systems. In all three systems the same number of breeding individuals was used each generation. Population L was a large random mating population with 24 males and 48 females selected each generation. The C4 and C8 populations were each divided into 6 subpopulations (lines) consisting of 4 males and 8 fem ales. Each of the three populations was replicated. In C4, selection for pupa weight was within lines for three generations, followed by a generation of among-line selection when the best two out of six lines were selected. These lines were then crossed to produce 6 new subpopulations, and the cycle was repeated. The C8 population was handled in exactly the same manner except that seven generations of selection within lines were practised before each generation of among-line selection. Selection response for the 42-generation period was significantly greater in the L population than in either subdivided population. No consistent differences among the selection systems were apparent when evaluating short-term response for the first 12 generations of the experiment. The results were interpreted as indicating that the influence of multiple-peak epistasis was not of major importance for this trait in determining ultimate response to selection when starting from a base population of previously unselected lines and utilizing a within- and among-line selection regime.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , December 1977 , pp. 237 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

References

REFERENCES

Baker, L. H. & Curnow, R. N. (1968). Choice of population size and use of variation between replicate populations in plant breeding selection programs. Crop Science 9, 555–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, G. A., Morris, J. A. & Robertson, A. (1957). An experimental check on quantitative genetic theory. I. Short term responses to selection. Journal of Genetics 55, 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enfield, F. D. (1976). Selection experiments in Tribolium designated to look at gene action issues. Proceedings of the International Conference on Quantitative Genetics.Google Scholar
Enfield, F. D., Comstock, R. E. & Braskerud, O. (1966). Selection for pupa weight in Tribolium castaneum. I. Parameters in base populations. Genetics 54, 523–533.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. (1971). Improvement of litter size in a strain of mice at a selection limit. Genetical Research 12, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A. & Burnell, D. (1970). Computer Models in Genetics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Goodwill, R. (1974). Comparison of three selection programs using Tribolium castaneum. Journal of Hereditary 65, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G. (1972). Estimation of genetic change. I. General theory and design of control populations. Animal Breeding Abstracts 40, 1–15.Google Scholar
Katz, A. J. & Young, S. Y. Y. (1975). Selection for high adult body weight in Drosophila populations with different structures. Genetics 81, 163–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, P. K., Enfield, F. D. & Comstock, R. E. (1977). Stabilizing selection for pupa weight in Tribolium castaneum. Genetics (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, C. E. & Dawson, P. S. (1972). Population biology and the Tribolium model. Evolutionary Biology 5, 133–223.Google Scholar
Madalena, F. E. & Hill, W. G. (1972). Population structure in artificial selection programmes: stimulation studies. Genetical Research 20, 75–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madalena, F. E. & Robertson, A. (1975). Population structure in artificial selection: studies with Drosophila melanogaster. Genetical Research 24, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maruyama, T. (1970). On the fixation probability of mutant genes in a sub-divided population. Genetical Research 15, 221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, H. H. & Enfield, F. D. (1975). Experimental evidence on limitations of the heritability parameter. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 45, 268–273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rahnefeld, G. S., Boylan, W. J., Comstock, R. E. & Singh, M. (1963). Mass selection for post-weaning growth in mice. Genetics 48, 1567–1583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rathie, K. A. (1976). Artificial selection with differing population structures. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. (1960). A theory of limits in artificial selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 153, 234–249.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. (1939). Genetic principle governing the rate of progress in livestock breeding. Proceedings of the American Society of Animal Production 32, 18–26.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1970). Random drift and the shifting balance theory of evolution. In Mathematical Topics in Population Genetics (ed. Kojima, K.), pp. 1–31. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar