Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 71, Issue 2, pp 250–257 | Cite as

Partitioning of genetic effects on lifetime performance of mice

  • C. Y. Lin
  • J. Nagai


A total of 2,457 lifetime performance records of 29 genetic groups of mice was analyzed using multiple regression of records on the proportion of gene contribution from 6 lines (designated as Lines MP, mQ, WP, wQ, CP and cQ). Genetic effects were partitioned into line additive, line maternal, direct heterosis, maternal heterosis and paternal heterosis effects. The line additive and line maternal effects were expressed as deviations from Line cQ. Seventeen of 25 line additive effects differed significantly (P<0.05) from Line cQ whereas only 4 of 25 line maternal effects deviated significantly from Line cQ. Deviations in line additive effects from cQ were negative in all lines examined whereas deviations in line maternal effects from cQ were all positive, indicating a negative relationship between line additive and line maternal effects. Direct heterosis effects were all positive and significant (P < 0.01) except in the MPxWP cross which was produced by mating Lines MP and WP of the same base population (P). Maternal heterosis effects were significant in 10 of 20 cases whereas paternal heterosis effects were significant in 13 of 20 cases. Although direct heterosis is a major component of total heterosis effects (sum of direct, maternal and paternal heterosis), the results suggest that parental heterosis may need to be considered in producing multiple way crosses. The fitting of line additive, line maternal, direct heterosis, maternal heterosis and paternal heterosis effects in the multiple regression model effectively accounted for all genetic effects in lifetime performance.

Key words

Mice Lifetime Performance Additive Maternal Heterosis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alenda R, Martin TG, Lasley JF, Ellersieck MR (1980) Estimation of genetic and maternal effects in crossbred cattle of Angus, Charolais and Hereford parentage. 2. Post-weaning growth, ribeye area and fat cover. J Anim Sci 50:235–241Google Scholar
  2. Bailey CM (1981) Calf survival and preweaning growth in divergent beef breeds and crosses. J Anim Sci 52:1244–1252Google Scholar
  3. Dickerson GE (1973) Inbreeding and heterosis in animals. Proc Anim Breed Genet Symp in honor of Dr JL Lush, pp 54–77Google Scholar
  4. Gardner CO, Eberhart SA (1966) Analysis and interpretation of the variety cross diallel and related populations. Biometrics 22:439–452Google Scholar
  5. Griffing B (1956) Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel crossing systems. Aust J Biol Sci 9:463–493Google Scholar
  6. Henderson CR (1952) Specific and general combining ability. In: Heterosis. Iowa State University Press, Ames, pp 352–370Google Scholar
  7. Koger M, Peacock M, Kirk WG, Crockett JR (1975) Heterosis effects on weaning performance of Brahman-Shorthorn calves. J Anim Sci 40:826–833Google Scholar
  8. Kress DD, Burfening JP, Anderson DC, Blackwell RL (1979) Heterosis among closed lines of Hereford cattle. 1. Preweaning growth and survival. J Anim Sci 49:950–957Google Scholar
  9. Jungst SB, Kuhlers DL (1984) Estimates of additive genetic, maternal and specific combining abilities for some litter traits of swine. J Anim Sci 59:1140–1148Google Scholar
  10. Lin CY, McAllister AJ, Batra TR, Lee AJ, Roy GL, Vesely JA, Wauthy JM, Winter KA (1984) Reproductive performance of crossline and pureline dairy heifers. J Dairy Sci 67: 2420–2428Google Scholar
  11. Nagai J, McAllister AJ (1982) Expected performance under repeated hybrid male cross and crisscross mating systems. Theor Appl Genet 61:177–182Google Scholar
  12. Nagai J, McAlister AJ, Chesnais JP (1984) Male and female contributions to heterosis in lifetime performance of mice. Theor Appl Genet 67:479–484Google Scholar
  13. Neville WE, Mullinix BG, McCormick WC (1984) Grading and rotational crossbreeding of beef cattle. 1. Reproductive performance. J Anim Sci 58:25–37Google Scholar
  14. Neville WE, Mullinix BG, McCormick WC (1984) Grading and rotational crossbreeding of beef cattle. 2. Calf performance to weaning. J Anim Sci 58:38–46Google Scholar
  15. Neville WE, Mullinix BG, McCormick WC (1984) Grading and rotational crossbreeding of beef cattle. 3. Postweaning and carcass traits of steers. J Anim Sci 58:47–56Google Scholar
  16. Peacock FM, Koger M, Crockett JR, Warnick AC (1977) Reproductive performance and crossbreeding Angus, Brahman and Charolais cattle. J Anim Sci 44:729–733Google Scholar
  17. Robison OW, Kelly MG, McDaniel BT, McDowell RE (1980) Genetic parameters of body size in purebred and crossbred dairy cattle. J Dairy Sci 63:1887–1899Google Scholar
  18. Robison OW, McDaniel BT, Rincon EJ (1981) Estimation of direct and maternal additive and heterotic effects from crossbreeding experiments in animals. J Anim Sci 52: 44–50Google Scholar
  19. Sellier P (1982) Selecting populations for use in crossbreeding. Proc 2nd World Congr Genet Appl Livestock Prod 6: 15–49Google Scholar
  20. Sheridan AK (1981) Crossbreeding and heterosis. Anim Breed Abstr 49:131–144Google Scholar
  21. Touchberry RW (1970) A comparison of the general merits of purebred and crossbred dairy cattle resulting from twenty years of crossbreeding. In: 19th Annu Nat Breeders Roundtable. Kansas City MoGoogle Scholar
  22. Turton JD (1981) Crossbreeding of dairy cattle — a selective review. Anim Breed Abstr 49:293–300Google Scholar
  23. Van Vleck LD (1970) Index selection for direct and maternal genetic components of economic traits. Biometrics 26:477–483Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Y. Lin
    • 1
  • J. Nagai
    • 1
  1. 1.Agriculture CanadaAnimal Research CentreOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations