Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:21:28.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Management of genetic diversity in small farm animal populations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

J. Fernández ,
T. H. E. Meuwissen ,
M. A. Toro  and
A. Mäki-Tanila
J. Fernández*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Mejora Genética Animal, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias, Ctra. Coruña Km 7.5, 28040 Madrid, Spain
T. H. E. Meuwissen
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Box 1432, Ås, Norway
M. A. Toro
Affiliation:
Departamento de Producción Animal, ETS Ingenieros Agrónomos, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Ciudad Universitaria, 28040 Madrid, Spain
A. Mäki-Tanila
Affiliation:
MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Biotechnology and Food Research, 31600 Jokioinen, Finland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Many local breeds of farm animals have small populations and, consequently, are highly endangered. The correct genetic management of such populations is crucial for their survival. Managing an animal population involves two steps: first, the individuals who will be permitted to leave descendants are to be chosen and the number offspring they will be permitted to produce has to be determined; second, the mating scheme has to be identified. Strategies dealing with the first step are directed towards the maximisation of effective population size and, therefore, act jointly on the reduction in the loss of genetic variation and in the increase of inbreeding. In this paper, the most relevant methods are summarised, including the so-called ‘Optimum Contribution’ methodology (contributions are proportional to the coancestry of each individual with the rest), which has been shown to be the best. Typically, this method is applied to pedigree information, but molecular marker data can be used to complete or replace the genealogy. When the population is subjected to explicit selection on any trait, the above methodology can be used by balancing the response to selection and the increase in coancestry/inbreeding. Different mating strategies also exist. Some of the mating schemes try to reduce the level of inbreeding in the short term by preventing mating between relatives. Others involve regular (circular) schemes that imply higher levels of inbreeding within populations in the short term, but demonstrate better performance in the long term. In addition, other tools such as cryopreservation and reproductive techniques aid in the management of small populations. In the future, genomic marker panels may replace the pedigree information in measuring the coancestry. The paper also includes the results of several experiments and field studies on the effectiveness and on the consequences of the use of the different strategies.

Keywords

local breedsinbreedingmating systemcryopreservation
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 11 , 26 September 2011 , pp. 1684 - 1698
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2011

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.)

Footnotes

*

This review is based on an invited presentation at the 60th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Animal Production held in Barcelona, Spain, in August 2009.

References

Alfonso, L, Parada, A, Legarra, A, Ugarte, E, Arana, A 2006. The effects of selective breeding against scrapie susceptibility on the genetic variability of the Latxa Black-Faced sheep breed. Genetics Selection Evolution 38, 495–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ballou, JD, Lacy, RC 1995. Identifying genetically important individuals for management of genetic variation in pedigreed populations. In Population management for survival and recovery. Analytical methods and strategies in small population conservation (ed. JD Ballou, M Gilpin and TJ Foose), pp. 76–111. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Bennewitz, J, Meuwissen, THE 2005a. Estimation of extinction probabilities of five German cattle breeds by population viability analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2949–2961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennewitz, J, Meuwissen, THE 2005b. A novel method for the estimation of the relative importance of breeds in order to conserve the total genetic variance. Genetic Selection Evolution 37, 315–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bennewitz, J, Simianer, H, Meuwissen, THE 2008. Investigations on merging breeds in genetic conservation schemes. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 2512–2519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, P, Nielsen, J, Sørensen, MK 2006. Computing realized and predicting optimal genetic contributions by EVA, 8th edition. WCGALP, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.Google Scholar
Bijma, P, Van Arendonk, JA, Woolliams, JA 2001. Predicting rates of inbreeding for livestock improvement schemes. Journal of Animal Science 79, 840–853.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borlase, SC, Loebel, DA, Frankham, R, Nurthen, RK, Briscoe, DADaggard, GE 1993. Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: consequences of equalization of family sizes. Conservation Biology 7, 122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brisbane, JR, Gibson, JP 1995. Balancing selection response and rate of inbreeding by including relationships in selection decisions. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 91, 421–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caballero, A 1994. Developments in the prediction of effective population size. Heredity 73, 657–679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caballero, A, Toro, MA 2000. Interrelations between effective population size and other pedigree tools for the management of conserved populations. Genetical Research 75, 331–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caballero, A, Santiago, E, Toro, MA 1996. System of mating to reduce inbreeding in selected populations. Animal Science 62, 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colleau, JJ, Avon, L 2008. Sustainable long-term conservation of rare cattle breeds using rotational AI sires. Genetics Selection Evolution 40, 415–432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daetwyler, HD, Villanueva, B, Bijma, P, Woolliams, JA 2007. Inbreeding in genome-wide selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 124, 369–376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Cara, MAR, Fernández, J, Toro, MA, Villanueva, B 2011. Using genome-wide information for the management of populations in conservation programmes. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics (submitted).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doyle, RW, Herbinger, CM 1994. The use of DNA fingerprinting for high-intensity, within-family selection in fish breeding. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, vol. 19, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, pp. 364–371.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS, Mackay, TFC 1996. An introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edition. Longman, Harlow.Google Scholar
Fernández, J, Caballero, A 2001. A comparison of management strategies for conservation with regard to population fitness. Conservation Genetics 2, 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, J, Toro, MA 1999. The use of mathematical programming to control inbreeding in selection schemes. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 116, 447–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, J, Toro, MA 2006. A new method to estimate relatedness from molecular markers. Molecular Ecology 15, 1657–1667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández, J, Toro, MA, Caballero, A 2001. Practical implementation of optimal management strategies in conservation programmes: a mate selection method. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 24.2, 17–24.Google Scholar
Fernández, J, Toro, MA, Caballero, A 2003. Fixed contributions designs versus minimization of global coancestry to control inbreeding in small populations. Genetics 165, 885–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, J, Toro, MA, Caballero, A 2008. Management of subdivided populations in conservation programs: development of a novel dynamic system. Genetics 179, 683–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fernández, J, Villanueva, B, Pong-Wong, R, Toro, MA 2005. Efficiency of the use of molecular markers in conservation programmes. Genetics 170, 1313–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gjerde, B, Gjøen, HM, Villanueva, B 1996. Optimum designs for fish breeding programmes with constrained inbreeding mass selection for a normally distributed trait. Livestock Production Science 47, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowe, RS, Robertson, A, Latter, BDH 1959. Environment and poultry breeding problems. 5. The design of poultry strains. Poultry Science 38, 462–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grundy, B, Villanueva, B, Woolliams, JA 1998. Dynamic selection procedures for constrained inbreeding and their consequences for pedigree development. Genetical Research 72, 159–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grundy, B, Caballero, A, Santiago, E, Hill, WG 1994. A note on using biased parameter values and non-random mating to reduce rates of inbreeding in selection programmes. Animal Production 59, 465–468.Google Scholar
Henderson, CR 1975. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 31, 423–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henryon, M, Sørensen, AC, Berg, P 2009. Mating animals by minimising the covariance between ancestral contributions generates less inbreeding without compromising genetic gain in breeding schemes with truncation selection. Animal 3, 1339–1346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Honda, T, Nomura, T, Mukai, F 2004. Reduction of inbreeding in commercial females by rotational mating with several sire lines. Genetics Selection Evolution 36, 509–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimura, M, Crow, JF 1963. On the maximum avoidance of inbreeding. Genetical Research 4, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klieve, HM, Kinghorn, BP, Barwick, SA 1994. The joint regulation of genetic gain and inbreeding under mate selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 111, 81–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindgren, D 1991. Optimal utilization of genetic resources. Forest Tree Improvement 23, 49–67.Google Scholar
Loebel, DA, Nurthen, RK, Frankham, R, Briscoe, DA, Craven, D 1992. Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations: consequences of equalizing founder representation. Zoo Biology 11, 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez, P, Fernández, J 2008. Estimating parentage relationships using molecular markers in aquaculture. In Aquaculture research trends (ed. SH Schwartz), pp. 59–112. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Martínez, V, Kause, A, Mäntysaari, E, Mäki-Tanila, A 2006. The use of alternative breeding schemes to enhance genetic improvement in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): I. One-stage selection. Aquaculture 254, 182–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwissen, THE 1997. Maximizing the response of selection with a predefined rate of inbreeding. Journal of Animal Science 75, 934–940.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, THE 2002. Gencont: an operational tool for controlling inbreeding in selection and conservation schemes. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, France, August 2002, Session 28.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, THE 2007. Operation of conservation schemes. In Utilisation and conservation of farm animal genetic resources (ed. K Oldenbroek), pp. 167–193. Wageningen Academic Publishers, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meuwissen, THE 2009. Towards consensus on how to measure neutral genetic diversity? Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 126, 333–334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, THE, Sonesson, AK 1998. Maximizing the response of selection with a predefined rate of inbreeding: overlapping generations. Journal of Animal Science 76, 2575–2583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meuwissen, THE, Hayes, BJ, Goddard, ME 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819–1829.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Montgomery, M, Ballou, JD, Nurthen, RK, England, P, Briscoe, D, Frankham, R 1997. Minimizing kinship in captive breeding programs. Zoo Biology 16, 377–389.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieto, B, Salgado, C, Toro, MA 1986. Optimization of artificial selection response. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 103, 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliehoek, PA, Windig, JJ, van Arendonk, JA, Bijma, P 2006. Estimating relatedness between individuals in general populations with a focus on their use in conservation programs. Genetics 173, 483–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oyama, K, Nojima, M, Shojo, M, Fukushima, M, Anada, K, Mukai, F 2007. Effect of sire mating patterns on future genetic merit and inbreeding in a closed beef cattle population. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 124, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Enciso, M, Fernando, RL 1992. Genetic evaluation with uncertain parentage: a comparison of methods. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 84, 173–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pérez-Figueroa, A, Saura, M, Fernández, J, Toro, MA, Caballero, A 2009. METAPOP – a software for the management and analysis of subdivided populations in conservation programs. Conservation Genetics 10, 1097–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Ramilo, ST, Morán, P, Caballero, A 2006. Relaxation of selection with equalization of parental contributions in conservation programs: an experimental test with Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 172, 1043–1054.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sánchez, L, Toro, MA, García, C 1999. Improving the efficiency of artificial selection: more selection pressure with less inbreeding. Genetics 151, 1103–1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sánchez, L, García, C, Lomas, J, Moreno, A, Nieto, B, Piqueras, J, Salgado, C, Toro, MA 2002. Lab experiments on optimum contribution selection. Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Montpellier, France, August 2002, Session 19.Google Scholar
Sánchez-Rodríguez, L, Bijma, P, Woolliams, JA 2003. Reducing inbreeding rates by managing genetic contributions across generations. Genetics 164, 1589–1595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santiago, E, Caballero, A 2000. Application of reproductive technologies to the maintenance of genetic resources. Conservation Biology 14, 1831–1836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simianer, H, Marti, S, Gibson, J, Hanotte, O, Rege, J 2003. An approach to the optimal allocation of conservation funds to minimise losses of genetic diversity between livestock breeds. Ecological Economics 45, 377–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sonesson, AK 2005. A combination of walk-back and optimum contribution selection in fish: a simulation study. Genetics Selection Evolution 37, 587–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonesson, AK, Meuwissen, THE 2000. Mating schemes for optimum contribution selection with constrained rates of inbreeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 32, 231–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonesson, AK, Meuwissen, THE 2002. Non-random mating for selection with restricted rates of inbreeding and overlapping generations. Genetics Selection Evolution 34, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sonesson, AK, Goddard, ME, Meuwissen, THE 2002. The use of frozen semen to minimise inbreeding in small populations. Genetical Research 80, 27–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toro, MA, Nieto, B 1984. A simple method for increasing the response to artificial selection. Genetical Research 44, 347–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toro, MA, Pérez-Enciso, M 1990. Optimization of selection response under restricted inbreeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 22, 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toro, MA, Nieto, BM, Salgado, C 1988. A note on minimisation of inbreeding in small scale breeding programmes. Livestock Production Science 20, 317–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toro, MA, Silió, L, Pérez-Enciso, M 1991. A note on the use of mate selection in closed MOET breeding schemes. Animal Production 53, 403–406.Google Scholar
Toro, MA, Fernández, J, Caballero, A 2009. Molecular characterization of breeds and its use in conservation. Livestock Science 120, 174–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toro, MA, Silió, L, Rodríguez, MC, Rodrigáñez, J, Fernández, J 1999. Optimal use of genetic markers in conservation programmes. Genetics Selection Evolution 31, 255–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toro, MA, Meuwissen, THE, Fernández, J, Shaat, I, Mäki-Tanila, A 2011. Assessing the genetic diversity in small farm animal populations. Animal, doi:10.1017/S1751731111000498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toro, MA, Barragán, C, Óvilo, C, Rodrigáñez, J, Rodriguez, C, Silió, L 2002. Estimation of coancestry in Iberian pigs using molecular markers. Conservation Genetics 3, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, SJ 2004. UK rare breeds: population genetics analyses and implications for applied conservation. In Farm animal genetic resources (ed. G Simm, B Villanueva, KD Sinclair and S Townsend), pp. 113–132. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Villanueva, B, Woolliams, JA, Simm, G 1994. Strategies for controlling rates of inbreeding in MOET nucleus schemes for beef cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 26, 517–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villanueva, B, Pong-Wong, R, Woolliams, JA, Avendaño, S 2004. Managing genetic resources in selected and conserved populations. In Farm animal genetic resources (ed. G Simm, B Villanueva, KD Sinclair and S Townsend), pp. 113–132. Nottingham University Press, Townsend.Google Scholar
Wang, J 1997. More efficient breeding systems for controlling inbreeding and effective size in animal populations. Heredity 79, 591–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, J 2001. Optimal marker-assisted selection to increase the effective size of small populations. Genetics 157, 867–874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, J, Caballero, A 1999. Developments in predicting the effective size of subdivided populations. Heredity 82, 212–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, RP, Lindgren, D 1995. Optimal family contributions and a linear approximation. Theoretical Population Biology 48, 318–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigel, KA, Lin, SW 2002. Controlling inbreeding by constraining the average relationship between parents of young bulls entering AI progeny test programs. Journal of Dairy Science 85, 2376–2383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Windig, JJ, Kaal, L 2008. An effective rotational mating scheme for inbreeding reduction in captive populations illustrated by the rare sheep breed Kempisch Heideschaap. Animal 2, 1733–1741.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolliams, JA 1989. Modifications to MOET nucleus breeding schemes to improve rates of genetic progress and decrease rates of inbreeding in dairy-cattle. Animal Production 49, 1–14.Google Scholar
Woolliams, JA, Bijma, P 2000. Predicting rates of inbreeding in populations undergoing selection. Genetics 154, 1851–1864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wray, NR, Goddard, ME 1994. Increasing long-term response to selection. Genetics Selection Evolution 26, 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S 1921. Systems of mating. Genetics 6, 111–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed