Literature DB >> 24232403

Reproductive fitness and artificial selection in animal breeding: culling on fitness prevents a decline in reproductive fitness in lines of Drosophila melanogaster selected for increased inebriation time.

R Frankham1, B H Yoo, B L Sheldon.   

Abstract

The maintenance of reproductive fitness in lines subjected to artificial selection is one of the major problems in animal breeding. The decline in reproductive performance has neither been predictable from heritabilities and genetic correlations, nor have conventional selection indices been adequate to avoid the problem. Gowe (1983) has suggested that the heritabilities of reproductive traits are non-linear, with heritabilities being higher on the lower fitness side. Consequently, he has predicted that culling on reproductive fitness in artificial selection lines will be effective in preventing the usual declines in fitness. An experimental evaluation of Gowe's prediction has been carried out by comparing fitnesses of replicated lines of three treatments: selection for increased inebriation time without culling on fitness (HO), selection for inebriation time with culling of 20% (4/20) of selected females on reproductive fitness (HS), and unselected controls (C). Response to selection for inebriation time in the two selection treatments was similar. After 25 generations, the competitive index, a measure of reproductive fitness, was significantly lower in the HO treatment than the HS treatment, while the HS treatment did not differ from the control lines or the base population. These results demonstrate for the first time that culling on reproductive fitness in selection lines can be used to prevent the usual decline in reproductive performance.

Entities:  

Year:  1988        PMID: 24232403     DOI: 10.1007/BF00273680

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


  18 in total

1.  The Experimental Assessment of Fitness in Drosophila. II. a Comparison of Competitive and Noncompetitive Measures.

Authors:  D S Haymer; D L Hartl
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  The Effect of an Experimental Bottleneck upon Quantitative Genetic Variation in the Housefly.

Authors:  E H Bryant; S A McCommas; L M Combs
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1986-12       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Genetic divergence under uniform selection. II. Different responses to selection for knockdown resistance to ethanol among Drosophila melanogaster populations and their replicate lines.

Authors:  F M Cohan; A A Hoffmann
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1986-09       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Quantitative genetics and fitness: lessons from Drosophila.

Authors:  D A Roff; T A Mousseau
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  1987-02       Impact factor: 3.821

5.  Offspring-parent genotypic regression: how linear is it?

Authors:  A Gimelfarb
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1986-03       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Some characteristics of parent-offspring regression in body weight of Mus musculus at different ages.

Authors:  A Nishida
Journal:  Can J Genet Cytol       Date:  1972-06

7.  An analysis of short-term selection experiments.

Authors:  R H Richardson; K Kojima; H L Lucas
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  1968-11       Impact factor: 3.821

Review 8.  Natural selection and the heritability of fitness components.

Authors:  T A Mousseau; D A Roff
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  1987-10       Impact factor: 3.821

9.  Effect of selection for high egg production in chickens on shedding of lymphoid leukosis virus and gs antigen into eggs.

Authors:  J L Spencer; J S Gavora; R S Gowe
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 3.352

10.  Selection for a threshold character in Drosophila. II. Homeostatic behaviour on relaxation of selection.

Authors:  B D Latter
Journal:  Genet Res       Date:  1966-10       Impact factor: 1.588

View more
  8 in total

1.  Genetic improvement of production while maintaining fitness.

Authors:  T H Meuwissen; J P Gibson; M Quinton
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 5.699

2.  Effects on heterozygosity and reproductive fitness of inbreeding with and without selection on fitness in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  R Frankham; G J Smith; D A Briscoe
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 5.699

3.  Effects of artificial stabilizing selection on Drosophila populations subjected to directional selection for another trait.

Authors:  A G Imasheva; L A Zhivotovsky; O E Lazebny
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.082

4.  P element transposon-induced quantitative genetic variation for inebriation time in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  R Frankham; A Torkamanzehi; C Moran
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 5.699

5.  Selection for increased length of reproductive life in mice.

Authors:  J Nagai; C Y Lin; H Sasada
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 5.699

6.  Effective sizes of livestock populations to prevent a decline in fitness.

Authors:  T H Meuwissen; J A Woolliams
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 5.699

7.  Divergent natural selection alters male sperm competition success in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Ralph Dobler; Marc Charette; Katrin Kaplan; Biz R Turnell; Klaus Reinhardt
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  Natural selection on sleep duration in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Caetano Souto-Maior; Yazmin L Serrano Negron; Susan T Harbison
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-11-26       Impact factor: 4.996

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.