Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-vt8vv Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-08-15T14:03:32.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artificial selection with differing population structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

K. A. Rathie  and
F. W. Nicholas
K. A. Rathie
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Australia
F. W. Nicholas
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Australia

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.

The effect of subdivision of a population on response to artificial directional selection for abdominal bristle number in Drosophila melanogaster was compared using large, replicated lines. Three different population structures were compared: (i) selection in an Undivided, large population with 50 pairs of parents (treatment U); (ii) selection in each of 10 sublines which were reconstituted every 6th generation by Crossing after Culling the 5 lowest sublines (treatment CC); and (iii) selection in each of 10 sublines which were reconstituted every 6th generation by Crossing after Retaining all 10 sublines (treatment CR). At the end of three cycles of selection and crossing, neither CR nor CC was superior to U; sublining did not increase response to selection. These results agree with the predictions arising from an entirely additive model and provide no evidence for the presence of epistasis.

A comparison of 50-pair lines (U) with several 5-pair lines was made over 31 generations. For the 50-pair lines, there was close agreement between response predicted from the base population (using ih2σp) and observed response throughout all 31 generations of selection. Although the best of the 5-pair lines exceeded the 50-pair lines in the early generations, average response to directional selection in the 5-pair lines soon fell behind that predicted from ih2σp, and soon reached a plateau.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , October 1980 , pp. 117 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

References

REFERENCES

Baker, L. H. & Curnow, R. N. (1969). Choice of population size and use of variation between replicate populations in plant breeding selection programs. Crop Science 9, 555–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowman, J. C. & Falconer, D. S. (1960). Inbreeding depression and heteroais of litter size in mice. Genetical Research 1, 262–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claringbold, P. J. & Barker, J. S. F. (1961). The estimation of relative fitness of Drosophila populations. Journal of Theoretical Biology 1, 190–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
East, E. M. & Jones, D. F. (1919). Inbreeding and Outbreeding. Philadelphia: Lippincott.Google Scholar
Enfield, F. D. (1970). Effect of population structure on progress from selection in Tribolium. Journal of Animal Science 31, 163.Google Scholar
Goodwill, R. (1974). Comparison of three selection programs using Tribolium castaneum. Journal of Heredity 65, 8–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hammond, K. (1973). Population size, selection response and variation in quantitative inheritance. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
Hill, W. G. (1963). Cyclical inbreeding with selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Unpublished M.S. thesis, University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Katz, A. J. & Enfield, F. D. (1977) Response to selection for increased pupa weight in Tribolium castaneum as related to population structure. Genetical Research 30, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, A. J. & Young, S. S. Y. (1975). Selection for high adult body weight in Drosophila populations with different structures. Genetics 81, 163–175.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lush, J. L. (1937). Animal Breeding Plans. Ames: Collegiate Press.Google Scholar
Madalena, F. E. & Hill, W. G. (1972). Population structure in artificial selection programmes: simulation studies. Genetical Research 20, 75–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Madalena, F. E. & Robertson, A. (1975). Population structure in artificial selection programmes: studies with Drosophila melanogaster. Genetical Research 24, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPhee, H. C. & Wright, S. (1925). Mendelian analysis of the pure breeds of livestock. III. The Shorthorns. Journal of Heredity 16, 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathie, K. A. (1969). Faster scoring of a quantitative trait of Drosophila melanogaster. Drosophila Information Service (44), 104.Google Scholar
Sheridan, A. K., Frankham, R., Jones, L. P., Rathie, K. A. & Barker, J. S. F. (1968). Partitioning of variance and estimation of genetic parameters for various bristle number characters of Drosophila melanogaster. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 38, 179–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1922 a). The effects of inbreeding and crossbreeding on guinea pigs. I. Decline in vigor. United States Department of Agriculture Bulletin (1090), 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1922 b). The effects of inbreeding and crossbreeding on guinea pigs. II. Differentiation among inbred families. United States Department of Agriculture Bulletin (1090), 37–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1922 c). The effects of inbreeding and crossbreeding on guinea pigs III. Crosses between highly inbred families. United States Department of Agriculture Bulletin (1121), 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1923 a). Mendelian analysis of the pure breeds of livestock. I. The measurement of inbreeding and relationship. Journal of Heredity 14, 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1923 b). Mendelian analysis of the pure breeds of livestock. II. The Duchess family of Shorthorns as bred by Thomas Bates. Journal of Heredity 14, 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. (1929). Evolution in a Mendelian population. Anatomical Record 44, 287.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. (1932). The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. Proceedings of the VI International Congress of Genetics 1, 356–366.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1939). Genetic principles governing the rate of progress of livestock breeding. Proceedings of the American Society of Animal Production 32, 18–26.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1977 a). Modes of evolutionary change of characters. Proceedings of the International Conference on Quantitative Genetics (ed. Pollak, E.; Kempthorne, O. and Bailey, T. B.), pp. 679–698. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1977 b). Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, vol. 3. Experimental Results and Evolutionary Deductions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1978). The relation of livestock breeding to theories of evolution. Journal of Animal Science 46, 1192–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoo, B. H. (1980 a). Long-term selection for a quantitative character in large replicate populations of Drosophila melanogaster. I. Response to selection. Genetical Research 35, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoo, B. H. (1980 b). Long-term selection for a quantitative character in large replicate populations of Drosophila melanogaster. II. Lethals and visible mutants with large effects. Genetical Research 35, 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar