Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T22:39:27.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The limits to artificial selection for body weight in the mouse: IV. Sources of new genetic variance—irradiation and outcrossing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

R. C. Roberts
R. C. Roberts
Affiliation:
A.R.C. Unit of Animal Genetics, Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh, 9

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. Two methods are examined of introducing new genetic variance into a line of mice selected for high 6-week weight which, at its limit, displayed no additive genetic variance.

2. The first method—irradiation—gave largely negative results. Any further gain under selection that was achieved could not be clearly distinguished from a possible environmental trend.

3. The second method—outcrossing to an unselected strain and then selecting from the cross—resulted in a clear gain over the original limit, but nine generations were required even to recover the original limit.

4. Various methods of transcending selection limits are evaluated in terms of their application to livestock improvement.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , February 1967 , pp. 87 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1967

References

REFERENCES

Abplanalp, H., Lowry, D. C., Lerner, I. M. & Dempster, E. R. (1964). Selection for egg number with X-ray-induced variation. Genetics, 50, 1083–1100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clayton, G. & Robertson, A. (1955). Mutation and quantitative variation. Am. Nat. 89, 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, G. & Robertson, A. (1964). The effects of X-rays on quantitative characters. Genet. Res. 5, 410–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1960). Introduction to quantitative genetics, pp. 216–217. Edinburgh and London: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Roberts, R. C. (1966 a). The limits to artificial selection for body weight in the mouse. I. The limits attained in earlier experiments. Genet. Res. 8, 347–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, R. C. (1966 b). The limits to artificial selection for body weight in the mouse. II. The genetic nature of the limits. Genet. Res. 8, 361–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, R. C. (1967). The limits to artificial selection for body weight in the mouse. III. Selection from crosses between previously selected lines. Genet. Res. 9, 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, A. & Osman, H. E. (private communication).Google Scholar
Rokizky, P. (1936). Experimental analysis of the problems of selection by X-ray irradiation. Usp. zootekh. Nauk, 2, 161–202.Google Scholar
Russell, W. L. (1962). An augmenting effect of dose fractionation on radiation-induced mutation rate in mice. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 48, 1724–1727.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, W. L., Russell, L. B. & Oakberg, E. F. (1958). Radiation genetics of mammals. Ch. 8 (pp. 189–205) in Radiation biology and medicine (Claus, W. D., ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Inc.Google Scholar
Scossiroli, R. E. (1954). Effectiveness of artificial selection under irradiation of plateaued populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Symp. Genetics of Population Structure, Pavia (Buzzati-Traverso, A. A., ed.), pp. 42–66.Google Scholar
Scossiroli, R. E. & Scossiroli, S. (1959). On the relative role of mutation and recombination in responses to selection for polygenic traits in irradiated populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 1, 61–69.Google Scholar
Serebrovsky, R. E. (1935). Acceleration of the rate of selection of quantitative characters in D. melanogaster by the action of X-rays. Zool. Zh. 14, 465–480.Google Scholar