Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-h6jzd Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-02-25T18:45:05.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relationship between heterozygosity and heterosis in reproductive traits in mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

Patricia McGloughlin
Patricia McGloughlin
Affiliation:
An Foras Talúntais, Dunsinea Research Centre, Castleknock, Co. Dublin, Ireland
Get access

Abstract

Continuous reciprocal backcrossing results in individuals which are 67% heterozygous, and which, assuming a linear relationship between heterozygosity and heterosis, would be expected to exhibit 67% of the heterosis found in Fi hybrids. An experiment was undertaken to investigate this relationship in the reproductive traits of mice. By crossing and repeated backcrossing in both directions using two unrelated strains of outbred mice, females were produced which were 25, 50, 75 and 100% heterozygous. The crossbred females and the two purebred strains (922 females in all) were mated to a sire line of a genetically distinct strain to standardize foetal heterosis. The reproductive performance of females with different percentage heterozygosity gave estimates of maternal heterosis. A significant positive linear relationship was found between heterozy-gosity and heterosis in litter size, total weight of litter and individual weight of progeny both at birth and at weaning. The relevance of these results for livestock breeding is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , February 1980 , pp. 69 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bichard, M. 1977. Economic efficiency of pig breeding schemes: a breeding company view. Livest. Prod. Sci. 4: 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conneally, P. M., Stone, W. H., Tyler, W. J., Casida, L. E. and Morton, N. E. 1963. Genetic load expressed as fetal death in cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 46: 232–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, E. P. 1973. Cost effectiveness and population structure in cattle breeding programmes. Annls Génét. Sél. anim. 5: 239–255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dickerson, G. 1969. Experimental approaches in utilising breed resources. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 37: 191–202.Google Scholar
Eisen, E. J. 1974. The laboratory mouse as a mammalian model for the genetics of growth. In Proc. 1st Wld Congr. Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Madrid, pp. 467–492.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1960. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Garten, C. T. Jr 1976. Relationships between aggressive behaviour and genie heterozygosity in the oldneld mouse, Peromyscus polionotus. Evolution, Lancaster, Pa. 30: 59–72.Google Scholar
Garten, C. T. Jr 1977. Relationships between exploratory behaviour and genie hetero-zygosity in the oldfield mouse. Anim. Behav. 25: 328–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hierl, H. F. 1976. [Relationship between heterozygosity as estimated from genetic markers and fertility in cattle. II. Heterozygosity and fertility.] Theor. appl. Genet. 47: 77–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, J. C. 1965. Genetic and environmental control of foetal and placental growth in the mouse. Anim. Prod. 7: 347–361.Google Scholar
Neal, N. P. 1935. The decrease in yielding capacity in advanced generations of hybrid corn. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 27: 666–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitter, G. 1978. Breed utilization for meat production in sheep. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 46:131–143.Google Scholar
Pirchner, F. 1974. Heterozygosity as estimated from genetic markers and its relation to performance of cattle. In Proc. Poultry Breeders' Roundtable Conf., Kansas.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. C. 1965. Some contributions of the laboratory mouse to animal breeding research. Part I. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 33: 339–353.Google Scholar
Schleger, W., Mayrhofer, G. and Stur, I. 1978. [Relationship between marker heterozygosity and fitness in cattle.] Z. Tierzücht. ZüchtBiol. 94: 296–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J. P. and Fuller, J. L. 1965. Genetics and Social Behaviour of the Dog, p. 406. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Sellier, P. 1976. The basis of crossbreeding in pigs: a review. Livest. Prod. Sci. 3: 203–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sentz, J. C., Robinson, H. F. and Comstock, R. E. 1954. Relation between heterozygosis and performance in maize. Agron. J. 46: 514–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheridan, A. K. and Randall, M. C. 1977. Heterosis for egg production in White Leghorn Australorp crosses. Br. Poult. Sci. 18: 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Touchberry, R. W. 1978. The role of crossing dairy breeds in intensive milk production in temperate climates. In Proc. int. Symp. Optimum Methods of Cattle Breeding, Warsaw, pp. 107–140.Google Scholar
Vetukhtv, M. 1956. Fecundity of hybrids between geographic populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution, Lancaster, Pa. 10: 139–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winters, L. M., Kiser, O. M., Jordan, P. S. and Peters, W. H. 1935. A six years' study of crossbreeding swine. Minn. Exp. Stn, Bull. No. 320.Google Scholar
Wright, S. 1922. The effects of inbreeding and crossbreeding on guinea pigs. U.S. Dep. Agric, Bull. No. 1121.Google Scholar