Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-m9pkr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T07:24:58.303Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The importance of genotype by environment interaction with reference to control populations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

David F. Bray
Affiliation:
Population Genetics Institute, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, U.S.A.
A. E. Bell
Affiliation:
Population Genetics Institute, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, U.S.A.
S. C. King
Affiliation:
Population Genetics Institute, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, U.S.A.

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.

Fifteen methods of maintaining control populations have been studied over eight generations using the flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. Populations were reproduced each generation from 50 males and 50 females. The methods were compared as to their ability to establish the level of the environment with respect to the base population and to separate environmental and genetic effects in two directionally selected lines.

It was demonstrated that a foundation stock of these beetles produced pupae which weighed about 10% more when grown in 70% relative humidity than when grown in 40% relative humidity. All lines were grown in one environment for two generations and then in the other environment for the next two generations. The mean pupa weights of two master controls were averaged to give an average master value which served as a standard against which the other controls were compared.

Inbred lines derived from a separate source of stock responded differently to the environments than did the foundation stock from which selected lines were drawn.

Evidence of genetic drift in mass mated lines was presented. No differences among the other methods of maintaining the original population were observed. It was suggested that if a smaller number of families had been used, additional differences might have been detected.

Response to selection in both directions over eight generations was symmetrical. Symmetry was also demonstrated for within environment regressions and it appears that greater progress was made in the dry environment than in the wet.

Initially the foundation stock weighed more in the wet environment than in the dry environment. After selection, the large line weighed more in the dry than in the wet. It was shown that the original population contained the basis for this interaction of directionally selected lines with environments since some ofthe initial famllies weighed more in dry than in the wet environment. It was suggested that the apparent differential response to selection, dependent upon the environment, may have been due to the larger variance in the dry environment. This variance was shown to be about twice as large as that in wet.

Due to the presence of the interaction, the base control populations were ineffective in separating genetic and environmental effects in the later generations of the selected lines. Repeated and relaxed methods of maintaining controls more closely indicated how environmental shifts affected the later generations of the selected lines.

It is concluded that a control line must be closely related to the selected line in origin and time in order for its reactions to environmental shifts to be similar in nature to the selected line. If these conditions are not met, undetected genotype by environment interactions may contribute to faulty comparisons. In addition, some method of reproducing the original population must be followed if interactions with respect to the origin are to be detected.

It is further concluded that it is unnecessary to place restrictions on the method of mating base populations for the purpose of maintaining control stocks, provided that the size of the breeding population is not less than 50 males and 50 females and that mass mating is not used.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

References

REFERENCES

Bell, A. E. & Moore, C. H. (1958). Further comparisons of reciprocal recurrent selection with conventional methods of selection for the improvement of quantitative characteristics. Proc. Xth Int. Cong. Genet., 2021.Google Scholar
Bell, A. E., Moore, C. H. & Warren, D. C. (1955). The evaluation of new methods for the improvement of quantitative characteristics. Cold Spr. Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 20, 197212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crow, J. F. (1954). Breeding structure of populations. II. Effective population number. Statistics and Mathematics in Biology, Chapter 43, 543556. Iowa State College Press: Kempthorne, Bancroft, Gowen and Lush.Google Scholar
Crow, J. F. & Morton, N. E. (1955). Measurement of gene frequency drift in small populations. Evolution, 9, 202214.Google Scholar
Dobzhansky, Theodosius (1948). Genetics of natural populations. XVIII. Experiments on chromosomes of Drosophila pseudobscura from different geographic regions. Genetics, 33, 588602.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1957). Selection for phenotypic intermediates In Drosophila. J. Genet. 55, (3), 551561.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics, ix + 365 pp. New York: The Ronald Press Company.Google Scholar
Goodwin, K., Dickerson, G. E. & Lamoreux, W. F. (1960). An experimental design for separating genetic and environmental changes in animal populations under selection. Biometrical Genetics, pp. 117138. Pergamon Press: O. Kempthorne.Google Scholar
Gowe, R. S., Robertson, Alan & Latter, B. D. H. (1959 a). Environment and poultry breeding problems. 5. The design of poultry control strains. Poult. Sci. 38, 462471.Google Scholar
Gowe, R. S., Johnson, A. S., Downs, J. H., Gibson, R., Mountain, W. F., Strain, J. H. & Tinney, B. F. (1959 a). Environment and poultry breeding problems. 4. The value of a random-bred control strain in a selection study. Poult. Sci. 38, 443462.Google Scholar
Griffing, B. (1954). Contributions of genotypic and environmental effects to earliness of tomato fruiting. Statistics and Mathematics in Biology, Chapter 41, 523536. Iowa State College Press: Kempthorne, Bancroft, Gowen and Lush.Google Scholar
Hickman, C. G. (1958). Population dynamics in dairy cattle and a measure of genetic change. Proc. Genet. Soc. Canada, Vol. III No. 2, 36.Google Scholar
King, S. C., Carson, J. R. & Doolittle, D. P. (1959). The Connecticut and Cornell randombred populations of chickens. World's Poult. Sci. J. 15, 139159.Google Scholar
Latter, B. D. H. (1959). Genetic sampling in a random mating population of constant size and sex ratio. Aust. J. biol. Sci. 12, 500505.Google Scholar
McBride, Glenorchy (1958).The environment and animal breeding problems. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 26, 349358.Google Scholar
McNary, H. W. (1960). The effect of environment on response to selection for body weight in Tribolium castaneum. Ph.D. Thesis, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana.Google Scholar
Pantelouris, E. M. (1957). Size response of developing Drosophila to temperature changes. J. Genet. 55 (3), 507510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, F. W. & Reeve, E. C. R. (1952). Studies in quantitative inheritance. I. The effects of selection of wing and thorax length In Drosophila melanogaster. J. Genet. 50, 414448.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1921). Systems of matings, I, II, III, IV, V. Genetics, 6, 111178.Google Scholar
Wright, S. (1931). Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16, 97159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed