Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:08:46.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of alternative genetic models for litter size in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

M. Pérez-Enciso ,
J. P. Bidanel ,
I. Baquedano  and
J. L. Noguera
M. Pérez-Enciso
Affiliation:
Udl-IRTA, Area de Producció Animal, Rovira Rome 177, 25198 Lleida, Spain
J. P. Bidanel
Affiliation:
INRA, Station de Génétique Quantitative et Appliquée, 78352 Jouy-en-Josas Cedex, France
I. Baquedano
Affiliation:
Udl-IRTA, Area de Producció Animal, Rovira Rome 177, 25198 Lleida, Spain
J. L. Noguera
Affiliation:
Udl-IRTA, Area de Producció Animal, Rovira Rome 177, 25198 Lleida, Spain
Get access

Abstract

Predictions of two models were compared. The models relate ovulation rate (OR) and prenatal survival (PS) to litter size (LS): the uterine capacity model (UCM), where maximum LS is limited by uterine capacity (UC), and the threshold model (TM) whereby PS is modelled as a binary threshold trait. Records were simulated according to both models using statistics from Trench Large White gilts. Both models were able to reproduce closely the observed curvilinear relationship between OR and LS, with LS reaching a plateau at high OR. Several genetic correlations (ρg) fulfilling the conditions h20R = 0·34 and h2LS = 0·12 (the residual maximum likelihood estimates in the population) were studied by means of stochastic computer simulation. The genetic correlation between OR and LS was very sensitive to changes in h2uc, whereas ρgLS,PS was always positive, and ρgOR,PS was always negative. The correlation between PS and UC was larger than 0·90, except for very small h2UC This suggests that genes affecting PS have a strong influence on UC and that PS can be a good indirect criterion to select for UC. Both models predicted that the advantage of an index combining OR and LS with respect to direct selection on LS diminishes in successive generations of selection and that the size of the experiment needed to detect significant differences is very large. Records were also simulated by halving the mean and variance of UC, so as to mimic unilateral hysterectomy-ovariectomy (UHO). If the UHO treatment results in halving UC, LS of UHO females should behave very much as half the UC of intact females.

Keywords

embryo mortalitylitter sizepigsthreshold modelsuterine capacity
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , October 1996 , pp. 255 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bennett, G. L. and Leymaster, K. A. 1989. Integration of ovulation rate, potential embryonic viability and uterine capacity into a model of litter size in swine. Journal of Animal Science 67:1230–1241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidanel, J. P. 1989. Taux d'ovulation et survie prénatale chez la truie: aspects génétiques. INRA Production Animal 2: 159–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidanel, J. P., Blasco, A., Dando, P. and Gogue, J. 1995. Results of four generations of selection for ovulation rate or prenatal survival in French Large White pigs. Proceedings of the 46th annual meeting of the European Association of Animal Production, vol. 1, p. 52 (abstr.).Google Scholar
Bidanel, J. P., Gruand, J. and Legault, C. 1996. Genetic variability of age and weight at puberty, ovulation rate and embryo survival in gilts and relations with production traits. Genetics Selection Evolution 28:103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasco, A., Argente, M. J., Haley, C. S. and Santacreu, M. A. 1994. Relationships between components of litter size in unilaterally ovariectomized and intact rabbit does. Journal of Animal Science 73: 3066–3072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasco, A., Bidanel, J. P., Bolet, G., Haley, C. S. and Santacreu, M. A. 1993a. Genetic variability in prenatal survival of polytocous species: a review. Livestock Production Science 37:1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blasco, A., Santacreu, M. A., Thompson, R. and Haley, C. S. 1993b. Estimates of genetic parameters for ovulation rate, prenatal survival and litter size in rabbits from an elliptical experiment. Livestock Production Science 34:163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohren, B. B., Hill, W. G. and Robertson, A. 1966. Some observations on asymmetrical correlated responses to selection. Genetical Research 7:44–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolet, G., Santacreu, M. A., Argente, M. J., Climent, A. and Blasco, A. 1994. Divergent selection for uterine efficiency in unilaterally ovariectomized rabbits. I. Phenotypic and genetic parameters. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph 19: 261–264.Google Scholar
Bradford, G. E. 1969. Genetic control of ovulation rate and embryo survival in mice. I. Response to selection. Genetics 61: 905–921.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casey, D., Rathje, T. A. and Johnson, R. K. 1994. Response to ten generations of index selection for components of litter size in swine. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph 17: 315–318.Google Scholar
Christenson, R. K., Leymaster, K. A. and Young, L. D. 1987. Justification of unilateral hysterectomy-ovariectomy as a model to evaluate uterine capacity in swine. Journal of Animal Science 65: 738–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Climent, A., Santacreu, M. A., Argente, M. J. and Blasco, A. 1994. Uterine and fetus traits in two divergent lines selected on uterine efficiency in rabbits. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph 19: 230–233.Google Scholar
Clutter, A. C., Kirby, Y. L. K. and Nielsen, M. K. 1994. Uterine capacity and ovulation rate in mice selected 21 generations on alternative criteria to increase litter size. Journal of Animal Science 72: 577–583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, J. C., Werb, Z. and Fisher, S. J. 1994. Implantation and the placenta: key pieces of the development puzzle. Science 266:1508–1518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cunningham, P. J., England, M. E., Young, L. D. and Zimmerman, D. R. 1979. Selection for ovulation rate in swine: correlated response in litter size and weight. Journal of Animal Science 48: 509–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Driancourt, M. A. 1994. Lack of between-follicle interactions in the sheep ovary. Reproduction, Nutrition, Development 34: 249–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dziuk, P. J. 1968. Effect of number of embryos and uterine space on embryo survival in the pig. Journal of Animal Science 27: 673–676.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falconer, D. S. 1960. The genetics of litter size in mice. Journal of Cell and Comparative Physiology 56: (supplement 1) 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falconer, D. S. 1989. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Foulley, J. L. 1992. Prediction of selection response for threshold dichotomous traits. Genetics 132:1187–1194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foulley, J. L., Gianola, D. and Thompson, R. 1983. Prediction of genetic merit from data on binary and quantitative variates with an application to calving difficulty, birth weight and pelvic opening. Genetics, Selection, Evolution 15: 401–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frankham, R. 1990. Are responses to artificial selection for reproductive fitness characters consistently asymmetrical? Genetical Research 56: 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gama, L. T. and Johnson, R. K. 1993. Changes in ovulation rate, uterine capacity, uterine dimensions and parity effects with selection for litter size in swine. Journal of Animal Science 71: 608–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groeneveld, E. 1994. VCE — A multivariate multimodel REML (co)variance component estimation package. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph 22:47–48.Google Scholar
Haley, C. S. and Lee, G. J. 1992. Genetic factors contributing to variation in litter size in British Large White gilts. Livestock Production Science 30: 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, C. S. and Lee, G. J. 1993. Genetic basis of prolificacy in Meishan pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 48: (supplement) 247–259.Google ScholarPubMed
Johnson, R. K. 1992. Selection for fertility in swine. Pig News and Information 13:59N–61N.Google Scholar
Johnson, R. K., Zimmerman, D. R. and Kittok, R. J. 1984. Selection for components of reproduction in swine. Livestock Production Science 11:541–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, Y. K. and Nielsen, M. K. 1993. Alternative methods of selection for litter size in mice. III. Response to 21 generations of selection. Journal of Animal Science 71: 571–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamberson, W. R., Blair, R. M. and Long, C. R. 1989. Effects of unilateral ovariectomy on reproductive traits of mice. Animal Reproduction Science 20:49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamberson, W. R., Johnson, R. K., Zimmerman, D. R. and Long, T. E. 1991. Direct responses to selection for increased litter size, decreased age at puberty, or random selection following selection for ovulation rate in swine. Journal of Animal Science 69:3129–3143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Land, R. B. and Falconer, D. S. 1969. Genetic studies of ovulation rate in the mouse. Genetical Research 13: 25–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, G. J., Ritchie, M., Thompson, M., Macdonald, A. A., Blasco, A., Santacreu, M. A., Argente, M. J. and Haley, C. S. 1995. Uterine capacity and prenatal survival in Meishan and Large White gilts. Animal Science 60: 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, M. K. 1994. Selection experiments for reproductive rate in mice. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph 19: 219–225.Google Scholar
Père, M.-C., Dourmand, J. Y. and Etienne, M. 1995. Mise en evidence de la capacite uterine chez la truie. Journees de la Recherche Porcine en Prance 27:19–24.Google Scholar
Pérez-Enciso, M., Foulley, J. L., Bodin, L. and Poivey, J. P. 1994. Genetic implications of a bivariate threshold model for litter size components. Journal of Animal Science 72: 2775–2786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santacreu, M. A., Argente, M. J., Climent, A., Blasco, A. and Bolet, G. 1994. Divergent selection for uterine efficiency in unilaterally ovariectomized rabbits. II. Response to selection. Proceedings of the fifth world congress on genetics applied to livestock production, Guelph 19:265–268.Google Scholar
Wilmut, I., Sales, D. I. and Ashworth, C. J. 1986. Maternal and embryonic factors associated with prenatal loss in mammals. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 76: 851–864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed