Advertisement

Journal of Genetics

, 75:63 | Cite as

Survival rates of mutant genes under artificial selection using individual and family information

  • Armando Caballero
  • Ming Wei
  • William G. Hill
Article

Abstract

We have used diffusion and branching process methods to investigate fixation rates, probabilities of survival per generation, and times to fixation of mutant genes under different selection methods incorporating individual and family information. Diffusion approximations fit well to simulated results even for large selection coefficients. Methods that give much weight to family information, such as BLUP evaluation which is widely used in animal breeding, reduce fixation rates of mutant genes because of the reduced effective population sizes. In general, it is observed that even mutants with relatively small heterozygous effects (say 0.1 phenotypic standard deviation) are practically ‘safe’ (i.e. their probability of loss from one generation to the next is smaller than, say, 10%) after just a few generations, typically less than 10. For methods of selection with larger effective size, such as within-family selection, the mutant is ‘safe’ in the population somewhat earlier but eventual fixation takes a longer time. Finally we evaluate the amount by which the use of marker assisted selection reduces the fixation probability of newly arisen mutants.

Keywords

Index selection BLUP effective population size marker assisted selection diffusion approximations branching process 

References

  1. Bulmer M. G. 1980The mathematical theory of quantitative genetics (Oxford: Clarendon Press)Google Scholar
  2. Caballero A., Santiago E. and Toro M. A. 1996 Systems of mating to reduce inbreeding in selected populations.Anim. Sci. 62: 431–442Google Scholar
  3. Ewens W. J. 1963 Numerical results and diffusion approximations in a genetic process.Biometrika 50: 241–250Google Scholar
  4. Falconer D. S. and Mackay T. F. C. 1996Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. (Harlow, UK: Longman)Google Scholar
  5. Gale J. S. 1990Theoretical population genetics (London: Unwin Hyman) ch. 4Google Scholar
  6. Grundy B., Caballero A., Santiago E. and Hill W. G. 1994 A note on using biased parameter values and non-random mating to reduce rates of inbreeding in selection programmes.Anim. Prod. 59: 465–468Google Scholar
  7. Henderson C. R. 1984Application of linear models in animal breeding. University of Guelph, Canada Hill W. G. 1969 On the theory of artificial selection in finite populations.Genet. Res. 13: 143–163Google Scholar
  8. Hill W. G. 1976 Order statistics of correlated variables and implications in genetic selection programmes.Biometrics 32: 889–902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hill W. G. 1982 Predictions of response to artificial selection from new mutations.Genet. Res. 40: 255–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hill W. G. 1985 Fixation probabilities of mutant genes with artificial selection.Genet. Sel. Evol. 17: 351–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hill W. G., Caballero A. and Dempfle L. 1996 Prediction of response to selection within families.Genet. Sel Evol. (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Kimura M. 1957 Some problems of stochastic processes in genetics.Ann. Math. Stat. 28: 882–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kimura M. 1962 On the probability of fixation of mutant genes in a population.Genetics 47: 713–719PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kimura M. 1964 Diffusion models in population genetics.J. Appl. Prob. 1: 177–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kimura M. and Ohta T. 1969 The average number of generations until fixation of a mutant gene in a finite population.Genetics 61: 763–771PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lande R. and Thompson R. 1990 Efficiency of Marker-Assisted-Selection in the improvement of quantitative traits.Genetics 124: 743–756PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Latter B. D. H. 1965 The response to artificial selection due to autosomal genes of large effect. I. Changes in gene frequency at an additive locus.Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 18: 585–598PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Lush J. L. 1947 Family merit and individual merit as bases for selection.Am. Nat. 81: 241–261, 362-379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lynch M. 1988 The rate of polygenic mutation.Genet. Res. 51: 137–148PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Robertson A. 1960 A theory of limits in artificial selection.Proc. R. Soc. London B153: 234–249Google Scholar
  21. Robertson A. 1961 Inbreeding in artificially selected programmes.Genet. Res. 2: 189–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Santiago E. and Caballero A. 1995 Effective size of populations under selection.Genetics 139: 1013–1030PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Verrier E., Colleau J. J. and Foulley J. L. 1993 Long term effects of selection based on animal model BLUP in a finite population.Theoret. Appl. Genet. 87: 446–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Villanueva B., Woolliams J. A. and Simm G. 1994 Strategies for controlling rates of inbreeding in MOET nucleus schemes for beef cattle.Genet. Sel. Evol. 26: 517–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wei M., Caballero A. and Hill W. G. 1996 Selection response in finite population.Genetics (in press)Google Scholar
  26. Woolliams J. A., Wray N. R. and Thompson R. 1993 Prediction of long-term contributions and inbreeding in populations undergoing mass selection.Genet. Res. 62: 231–242Google Scholar
  27. Wray N.R. and Hill W G 1989 a syptonic rates of response from index selection.Anim.Prod. 49: 217–227Google Scholar
  28. Wray N.R. and Thompson R. 1990 Prediction of rates of inbreeding in selected population.Genet.Res. 55: 41–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wray N. R., Woolliams J. A. and Thompson R. 1994 Predicition of rates of inbreeding in population undergoing index selection.Theoret.Appl.Genet. 87: 878–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Armando Caballero
    • 1
  • Ming Wei
    • 1
  • William G. Hill
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Cell, Animal and Population BiologyUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations