Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:40:36.828Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of population size and selection intensity in selection for a quantitative character in Drosophila: II. Long-term response to selection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

L. P. Jones ,
R. Frankham  and
J. S. F. Barker
L. P. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Sydney, N.S.W., 2006, Australia
R. Frankham
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Sydney, N.S.W., 2006, Australia
J. S. F. Barker
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, Sydney, N.S.W., 2006, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. An experimental evaluation of Robertson's (1960) theory of limits in artificial selection was attempted. A number of lines from the Canberra base population were selected for abdominal bristle number over 50 generations with population sizes of 10, 20, and 40 pairs of parents and selection intensities of 10, 20 and 40% as well as unselected controls.

2. In general, the total response obtained increased with an increase in Nī (product of population size and standardized selection differential).

3. Thus, total response increased with increase in the number of individuals scored, or, for a fixed number of parents, increase in selection intensity increased both rates of response per generation and total response.

4. But for the same total number scored, the response increased as selection intensity decreased. However, the proportion selected had only a small effect as compared with that of the total number scored.

5. Sublines in which the population size was reduced after 16 generations of selection but with the selection intensity kept constant, immediately fell behind their parent lines and gave much less response.

6. Agreement between replicate lines was generally poor, particularly for the 10- and 20-pair lines.

7. Patterns of response in individual lines were frequently irregular and ‘waves of response’ were not uncommon.

8. The results are discussed in terms of several theoretical models of selection limits. In general, agreement with these models was poor, as much of the response appeared to be due to a few genes (or gene combinations) with large effects on bristle number.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , December 1968 , pp. 249 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

References

REFERENCES

Abplanalp, H. (1962). Modification of selection limits for egg number. Genet. Res. 3, 210–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, G. A. & Robertson, A. (1957). An experimental check on quantitative genetical theory. II. The long-term effects of selection. J. Genet. 55, 152–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chow, J. F. (1954). Breeding structure of populations. II. Effective population number. In Statistics and Mathematics in Biology. Eds. Kempthorne, O., Bancroft, T. A., Gowen, J. W. and Lush, J. L.. Ames: Iowa State College Press.Google Scholar
Dempster, E. R. (1955). Genetic models in relation to animal breeding. Biometrics 11, 535–536.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. & King, J. W. (1953). A study of selection limits in the mouse. J. Genet. 51, 561–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankham, R. (1967). Studies in quantitative genetics and selection theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Frankham, R., Jones, L. P. & Barker, J. S. F. (1968 a). The effects of population size and selection intensity in selection for a quantitative character in Drosophila. I. Short-term response to selection. Genet. Res. 12, 237–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fhankham, R., Jones, L. P. & Barker, J. S. F. (1968 b). The effects of population size and selection intensity in selection for a quantitative character in Drosophila. III. Analyses of the lines. Genet. Res. 12, 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, A. S. (1963). Variation of scutellar bristles in Drosophila. I. Genetic leakage. Genetics 48, 497–514.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fraser, A. S. & Hansche, P. E. (1965). Simulation of genetic systems. Major and minor loci. In Genetics Today, 3, 507–516. Ed. Geerts, S. J.. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Fraser, A. S., Scowcroft, W., Nassar, R., Angeles, H. & Bravo, G. (1965). Variation of scutellar bristles in Drosophila. IV. Effects of selection. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 18, 619–641.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, J. L. (1965 a). Effects of finite size on selection advance in simulated genetic populations. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 18, 599–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, J. L. (1965 b). A Monte Carlo evaluation of predicted selection response. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 18, 999–1007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gill, J. L. (1965 c). Selection and linkage in simulated genetic populations. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 18, 1171–1181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, W. G. & Robertson, A. (1966). The effect of linkage on limits to artificial selection. Genet. Res. 8, 269–294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
James, J. W. (1962). Conflict between centripetal and directional selection. Heredity 17, 487–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, J. W. (1965). Response curves in selection experiments. Heredity 20, 57–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, L. P. (1967 a). Effects of X-rays on response to selection for a quantitative character of Drosophila melanogaster. Genet. Res. 9, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, L. P. (1967 b). Studies in population genetics and quantitative inheritance in Droso-phila melanogaster. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Latter, B. D. H. (1965 a). The response to artificial selection due to autosomal genes of large effect. I. Change in gene frequency at an additive locus. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 18, 585–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latter, B. D. H. (1965 b). The response to artificial selection due to autosomal genes of large effect. II. The effects of linkage on limits to selection in finite populations. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 18, 1009–1023.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Latter, B. D. H. (1966). The response to artificial selection due to autosomal genes of large effect. III. The effects of linkage on the rate of advance and approach to fixation in finite populations. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 19, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Law, C. N. (1966). The location of genetic factors affecting a quantitative character in wheat. Genetics 53, 487–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Law, C. N. (1967). The location of genetic factors controlling a number of quantitative characters in wheat. Genetics 56, 445–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McBride, G. & Robertson, A. (1963). Selection using assortative mating in Drosophila melanogaster. Genet. Res. 4, 356–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K. & Harrison, B. J. (1949). The manifold effects of selection. I and II. Heredity 3, 1–52, 131–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, F. (1918). An experiment to test the nature of the variations on which selection acts. Indiana Univ. Stud. 5, 1–45.Google Scholar
Payne, F. (1920). Selection for high and low bristle number in the mutant strain ‘reduced’. Genetics 5, 501–542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasmuson, M. (1955). Selection for bristle number in some unrelated strains of Drosophila melanogaster. Acta Zool. 36, 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathie, K. A. (1967). An investigation of methods of selection for quantitative characters in Drosophila melanogaster. M.Sc.Agr. Thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. (1960). A theory of limits in artificial selection. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 153, 234–249.Google Scholar
Robertson, A. (1961). Inbreeding in artificial selection programmes. Genet. Res. 2, 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. (1966). Artificial selection in plants and animals. Proc. Roy. Soc. B 164, 341–349.Google ScholarPubMed
Robertson, F. W. & Reeve, E. C. R. (1952). Studies in quantitative inheritance. I. The effects of selection on wing and thorax length in Drosophila melanogaster. J. Genet. 50, 414–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldon, B. L. (1963). Studies in artificial selection of quantitative characters. I. Selection for abdominal bristles in Drosophila melanogaster. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 16, 490–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sismandis, A. (1942). Selection for an almost invariable character in Drosophila. J. Genet. 44, 204–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spickett, S. G. & Thoday, J. M. (1966). Regular responses to selection. 3. Interactions between located polygenes. Genet. Res. 7, 96–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tantawy, A. O. (1959). Selection limits with sib matings in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 44, 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thoday, J. M. & Boam, T. B. (1961). Regular responses to selection. 1. Description of responses. Genet. Res. 2, 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wehrhahn, C. & Allard, R. W. (1965). The detection and measurement of the effects of individual genes involved in the inheritance of a quantitative character in wheat. Genetics 51, 109–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamada, Y., Bohren, B. B. & Crittenden, L. B. (1958). Genetic analysis of a White Leghorn closed flock apparently plateaued for egg production. Poult. Sci. 37, 565–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeleny, C. (1922). The effect of selection for eye facet number in the white Bar-eye race of Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 7, 1–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed