Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:18:12.991Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The genetic basis of response in mouse lines divergently selected for body weight or fat content. I. The relative contributions of autosomal and sex-linked genes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Ian M. Hastings  and
Roel F. Veerkamp
Ian M. Hastings*
Affiliation:
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JT, Scotland
Roel F. Veerkamp
Affiliation:
Genetics and Behavioural Sciences Department, Scottish Agricultural College, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, Scotland and AFRC Roslin Institute, Roslin, EH25 9PS, Scotland
*
* Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

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.

Lines of mice have been divergently selected for over forty generations on either body weight or fat content. Reciprocal crosses were made between the divergent lines and the offspring backcrossed to the parental lines. The resulting data allowed us to investigate the genetic basis of response, including two features of particular interest: (i) the relative contribution of autosomal and sex-linked genes and whether any significant Y chromosome or cytoplasmic effects were present (ii) the mechanism of gene action, whether predominantly additive or whether significant dominance effects were present. A large additive sex-linked effect was observed in lines selected on body weight which accounted for approximately 25% of the divergence. The remaining 75% of the divergence appeared to be autosomal. There was no apparent sex-linked effect in lines selected on fat content and the response appeared to be entirely autosomal and additive.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 62 , Issue 3 , December 1993 , pp. 169 - 175
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

References

Bakker, H., Nagai, J. & Eisen, E. J. (1976). Average genetic and heterotic effects on growth in mice selected for large six week body weight on rapid post weaning gain. Journal of Animal Science 43, 1145–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandy, T. R. & Eisen, E. J. (1984). Direct and maternal genetic differences between lines of mice selected for body weight and litter size: traits of offspring. Journal of Animal Science 59, 908–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beniwal, B. K., Hastings, I. M., Thompson, R. & Hill, W. G. (1992a). Estimation of changes in genetic parameters in selected lines of mice using REML with an animal model. I. Lean mass. Heredity 69, 352–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beniwal, B. K., Hastings, I. M., Thompson, R. & Hill, W. G. (1992b). Estimation of changes in genetic parameters in selected lines of mice using REML with an animal model. II. Body weight, body composition and litter size. Heredity 69, 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhuvanakumar, C. K., Lynch, C. B., Roberts, R. C. & Hill, W. G. (1985). Heterosis among lines of mice selected for body weight. 1. Growth. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 71, 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlesworth, B., Coyne, J. A. & Barton, N. H. (1987). The relative rates of evolution of sex chromosomes and autosomes. American Naturalist 130, 113–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charlton, H. M. (1984). Mouse mutants as models in endocrine research. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Physiology 69, 655–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coyne, J. A. (1992). Genetics and Speciation. Nature 355, 511–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coyne, J. A. & Orr, H. A. (1989). Two rules of speciation. In Speciation and its Consequences (ed. Otte, D. and Endler, J. A.). Sinauer Ass., Mass. USA.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 committee (1988). Genstat 5 Reference Manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1989). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics 3rd ed.Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Griffing, B. (1965). Influence of sex on selection. I. Contribution of sex-linked genes. Australian Journal of Biological Science 18, 1157–1170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hastings, I. M. (1990). An investigation of mouse lines selected on body weight for the presence of major genes. Proceedings of the 4th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production XIII, 317–320.Google Scholar
Hastings, I. M., Bootland, L. H. & Hill, W. G. (1993). The role of growth hormone in lines of mice divergently selected on body weight. Genetical Research 61, 101–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hastings, I. M. & Hill, W. G. (1989). A note on the effects of different selection criteria on carcass composition in mice. Animal Production 48, 229–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastings, I. M. & Hill, W. G. (1993). The effect of cage type on murine body composition. Mouse Genome 91, 329–330.Google Scholar
Hastings, I. M., Yang, J. & Hill, W. G. (1991). Analysis of lines of mice selected on fat content. 4. Correlated responses in growth and reproduction. Genetical Research 58, 253–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hayman, B. I. (1960). The theory and analysis of diallel crosses. III. Genetics 45, 155–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jinks, J. L. (1956). The F2 and backcross generations from a diallel cross of Nicotiana rustica varieties. Heredity 10, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lalley, P. A. & McKusick, V. A. (1985). Report of the committee on comparative mapping. Eight international workshop on human gene mapping. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 40, 536–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mausolf, M., Horst, P. & Schlote, W. (1983). Existence and exploitation of maternal and multiparous animals. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Animal Production 1, 284–286.Google Scholar
Ohno, S. (1967). Sex Chromosomes and Sex-linked Genes. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Thompson, R. (1971). Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58, 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roubertoux, P., Semal, C. & Ragueneau, S. (1985). Early development in mice: II. Sensory motor behaviour and genetic analysis. Physiology and Behaviour 35, 659–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharp, G. L., Hill, W. G. & Robertson, A. (1984). Effects of selection on growth, body composition and food intake in mice. I. Responses in selected traits. Genetical Research 43, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veerkamp, R. F. (1991). An investigation for the presence of a major gene in mouse lines selected on body weight. Ingenieur's Thesis. Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Veerkamp, R. F., Haley, C. S., Knott, S. A. & Hastings, I. M. (1993). The genetic basis of response in mouse lines divergently selected for body weight or fat content. II. The contribution of genes with a large effect. Genetical Research 62, 177–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, J. W., Eisen, E. J. & Legates, J. E. (1970). Sex-heterosis interaction. Heterosis and reciprocal effects among mice selected for body weight. Journal of Animal Science 31, 289–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar