Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:12:51.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two-way within-family and mass selection for 8-week body weight in different mouse populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Ines von Butler ,
Henning Willeke  and
Franz Pirchner
Ines von Butler
Affiliation:
Lehrstuhl für Tierzucht der TechnischenUniversität München 8050 Freising-Weihenstephan, FRG
Henning Willeke
Affiliation:
Lehrstuhl für Tierzucht der TechnischenUniversität München 8050 Freising-Weihenstephan, FRG
Franz Pirchner
Affiliation:
Lehrstuhl für Tierzucht der TechnischenUniversität München 8050 Freising-Weihenstephan, FRG
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.

Two mouse populations, randombred albino mice and a cross of four inbred strains, were divergently selected for high (H8) and low (L8) 8-week body weight over 18 generations using within-family and individual selection. The crossbreds showed asymmetry of selection response and realized heritabilities (H8 0·29 ± 0·01; L8 0·17 ± 0·01). In the randombred population realized heritabilities were symmetrical (H8 0·23 ± 0·01; L8 0·22 ± 0·02). Over the first nine generations individual selection was nearly 40 per cent better than within-family selection, as was expected from the full sib correlation in both populations. As selection progressed, within-family selection reached 82% and 61% of the responses obtained with individual selection in the crossbreds and randombred respectively. Correlated responses for 3-week (weaning) and 5-week body weights agreed with observations made on direct responses, but selection for L8 did not reduce weaning weight. Selection for L8 decreased and selection for H8 increased first litter size at birth. However, mass-selected L8-pairs had a higher life-reproduction and life-span than H8-pairs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 43 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 191 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

References

REFERENCES

Avery, P. J. & Hill, W. G. (1977). Variability in genetic parameters among small populations. Genetical Research 29, 193–213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradford, G. E. (1971). Growth and reproduction in mice selected for rapid body weight gain. Genetics 69, 499–512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cruden, D. (1949). The computation of inbreeding coefficients in closed populations. Heredity 40, 248–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dempfle, L. (1975). A note on increasing the limit of selection through selection within families. Genetical Research 24, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisen, E. J., Hanrahan, J. P. & Legates, J. E. (1973). Effects of population size and selection intensity on correlated response to selection for postweaning gain in mice. Genetics 74, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisen, E. J. (1974). The laboratory mouse as a mammalian model for the genetics of growth. Livestock Production Science 1, 467–491.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1953). Selection for large and small size in mice. Genetics 51, 470–501.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). Selection of mice for growth on high and low planes of nutrition. Genetical Research 1, 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1973). Replicated selection for body weight in mice. Genetical Research 17, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1976). Some results of the Edinburgh selection experiments with mice. International Congress on Quantitative Genetics, Ames, Iowa, USA.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1981). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, 2nd edn.London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G. (1971). Design and efficiency of selection experiments for estimating genetic parameters. Biometrics 27, 293–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legates, J. E. & Farthing, B. R. (1962). Selection for growth and maternal performance in mice. Journal of Animal Science 29, 974 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. C. (1982). The laboratory mouse as a model for animal breeding: a review of selection for increased body weight and litter size. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Madrid, Spain, PS-I-4.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. C. (1961). The lifetime growth and reproduction of selected strains of mice. Heredity 16, 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, R. C. (1965). Some contributions of the laboratory mouse to animal breeding research. Animal Breeding Abstracts 33, 339–515.Google Scholar
Sutherland, T. M., Biondini, P. E. & Haverland, C. H. (1968). Selection under assortative mating in mice. Genetical Research 11, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, S. S. Y. & Skavaril, E. V. (1976). Computer simulation of within family selection in finite populations. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 48, 45–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walter, E., Rapp, K. G., Von Butler, I. & Pirchner, F. (1983). Effects of divergent weight selection on morphological and chemical composition of mice. 34th Annual Meeting, EAAP, Madrid, G 5.31.Google Scholar
Willeke, H. (1982). Comparison of selection schemes for improving litter size in pigs - results of a simulation study. Livestock Production Science 8, 534–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar