Literature DB >> 24190317

Long-term effects of selection based on the animal model BLUP in a finite population.

E Verrier1, J J Colleau, J L Foulley.   

Abstract

Monte Carlo simulation was used to assess the long-term effects of truncation selection within small populations using indices (I=ωf+m) combining mid-parent [f=(a i+a d)/2] and Mendelian-sampling (m=a-f) evaluations provided by an animal model BLUP (a=f+m). Phenotypic values of panmictic populations were generated for 30 discrete generations. Assuming a purely additive polygenic model, heritability (h 2) values were 0.10, 0.25 or 0.50. Two population sizes were considered: five males and 25 females selected out of 50 candidates of each sex (small populations, S) and 50 males and 250 females selected out of 500 candidates in each sex (large populations, L). Selection was carried out on the index defined above with ω = 1 (animal model BLUP), ω=1/2, or ω=0 (selection on within-family deviations). Mass selection was also considered. Selection based on the animal model BLUP (ω=1) maximized the cumulative genetic gain in L populations. In S populations, selection using ω = 1/2 and mass selection were more efficient than selection under an animal model (+ 3 to + 7% and + 1 to + 4% respectively, depending on h (2)). Selection on within-family deviations always led to the lowest gains. In most cases, the variance of response to selection between replicates did not depend on the selection method. The within-replicate genetic variance and the average coefficient of inbreeding (F) were highly affected by selection with ω=1 or 1/2, especially in populations of size S. As expected, selection based on within-family deviations was less detrimental in that respect. The number of copies of founder neutral genes at a separate locus, and the probability vector of origin of the genes in reference to the founder animals, were also observed in addition to F values. The conclusion was that selection procedures placing less emphasis on family information might be interesting alternatives to selection based on animal model BLUP, especially for small populations with long-term selection objectives.

Entities:  

Year:  1993        PMID: 24190317     DOI: 10.1007/BF00215090

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Theor Appl Genet        ISSN: 0040-5752            Impact factor:   5.699


  15 in total

1.  Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model.

Authors:  C R Henderson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  The effect of selection on genetic variability: a simulation study.

Authors:  M G Bulmer
Journal:  Genet Res       Date:  1976-10       Impact factor: 1.588

3.  Evolution in Mendelian Populations.

Authors:  S Wright
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1931-03       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Optimal properties of the conditional mean as a selection criterion.

Authors:  R L Fernando; D Gianola
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 5.699

5.  Effect of mass selection on the within-family genetic variance in finite populations.

Authors:  E Verrier; J J Colleau; J L Foulley
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1989-01       Impact factor: 5.699

6.  Predicting cumulated response to directional selection in finite panmictic populations.

Authors:  E Verrier; J J Colleau; J L Foulley
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 5.699

7.  Prediction of rates of inbreeding in selected populations.

Authors:  N R Wray; R Thompson
Journal:  Genet Res       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 1.588

8.  Fixation probabilities of mutant genes with artificial selection.

Authors:  W G Hill
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Selection on individual phenotype and best linear unbiased predictor of breeding value in a closed swine herd.

Authors:  G M Belonsky; B W Kennedy
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 3.159

10.  Size of population required for artificial selection.

Authors:  F W Nicholas
Journal:  Genet Res       Date:  1980-02       Impact factor: 1.588

View more
  11 in total

1.  Balancing selection response and rate of inbreeding by including genetic relationships in selection decisions.

Authors:  J R Brisbane; J P Gibson
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 5.699

2.  Genetic steady-state under BLUP selection for an infinite and homogeneous population with discrete generations.

Authors:  F Phocas; J J Colleau
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 5.699

3.  Including genetic relationships in selection decisions: alternative methodologies.

Authors:  J R Brisbane; J P Gibson
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 5.699

4.  Population structure of Mazandaran native fowls using pedigree analysis.

Authors:  Mohsen Gholizadeh
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 1.559

5.  Evaluation of breeding strategies for polledness in dairy cattle using a newly developed simulation framework for quantitative and Mendelian traits.

Authors:  Carsten Scheper; Monika Wensch-Dorendorf; Tong Yin; Holger Dressel; Herrmann Swalve; Sven König
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 4.297

6.  Benefits of testing in both bio-secure and production environments in genomic selection breeding programs for commercial broiler chicken.

Authors:  Thinh T Chu; Setegn W Alemu; Elise Norberg; Anders C Sørensen; John Henshall; Rachel Hawken; Just Jensen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2018-11-03       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  Comparison of infinitesimal and finite locus models for long-term breeding simulations with direct and maternal effects at the example of honeybees.

Authors:  Manuel Plate; Richard Bernstein; Andreas Hoppe; Kaspar Bienefeld
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Comparative analyses of genetic trends and prospects for selection against hip and elbow dysplasia in 15 UK dog breeds.

Authors:  Thomas W Lewis; Sarah C Blott; John A Woolliams
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2013-03-02       Impact factor: 2.797

9.  Indirect genetic effects and inbreeding: consequences of BLUP selection for socially affected traits on rate of inbreeding.

Authors:  Hooi Ling Khaw; Raul W Ponzoni; Piter Bijma
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  The importance of controlled mating in honeybee breeding.

Authors:  Manuel Plate; Richard Bernstein; Andreas Hoppe; Kaspar Bienefeld
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2019-12-12       Impact factor: 4.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.