Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T19:26:27.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marker-assisted selection of candidate bulls for progeny testing programmes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

Y. Kashi ,
E. Hallerman  and
M. Soller
Y. Kashi
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
E. Hallerman
Affiliation:
Department of Aquaculture, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
M. Soller
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel
Get access

Abstract

A theoretical analysis of the potential benefits of marker-assisted selection (MAS) of candidate bulls prior to entry into a young sire progeny testing programme was carried out. It is assumed that quantitative trait loci (QTL) affecting milk production have been mapped with respect to known genetic markers, and MAS is based on evaluation of elite sires in order to identify marker alleles in coupling to favourable or unfavourable QTL alleles. Candidate bulls, descendants of the elite sire will then be selected, prior to conventional progeny testing, on the basis of the marker alleles derived from the elite-sire ancestor.

The analysis considers recombination between marker and QTL, the difficulty of tracing specific marker alleles from sire to progeny, and the expectation that MAS, in practice, will be implemented in the grandsons, rather than in the sons of elite sires. It is shown that MAS of candidate bulls, based on the use of a single diallelic marker in linkage to a QTL will have only a negligible effect on the rate of genetic progress. Increases of 15 to 20% in the rate of genetic gain, however, can be obtained by the use of single polyallelic markers, and increases of 20 to 30% can be obtained by utilizing haplotypes of diallelic or polyallelic markers.

Keywords

genetic markersmilk productionprogeny testingquantitative traits
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , August 1990 , pp. 63 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1990

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

REFERENCES

Beckmann, J. S., Kashi, Y., Hallerman, E. M., Nave, A. and Soller, M. 1986. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms among Israeli Holstein-Friesian dairy bulls. Animal Genetics 17: 25–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckmann, J. S. and Soller, M. 1983. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms in genetic improvement: methodologies, mapping, and costs. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 67: 35–43.Google Scholar
Beckmann, J. S. and Soller, M. 1987. Molecular markers in the genetic improvement of farm animals. Biotechnology 5: 573–576.Google Scholar
Edwards, M. D., Stuber, C. W. and Wendel, J. F. 1987. Molecular-marker facilitated investigations of quantitative trait loci in maize. 1. Numbers, genomic distribution and types of gene action. Genetics 116: 113–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fries, R., Beckmann, J. S., Georges, M., Soller, M. and Womack, J. 1989. The bovine gene map. Animal Genetics 20: 3–29.Google Scholar
Geldermann, H. 1975. Investigations on inheritance of quantitative characters in animals by gene markers. 1. Methods. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 46: 319–330.Google Scholar
Geldermann, H., Piper, U. and Roth, B. 1985. Effects of marked chromosome sections on milk performance in cattle. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 70: 138–146.Google Scholar
Georges, M., Lequarre, A. S., Castelli, M., Hanset, R. and Vassart, G. 1988. DNA fingerprinting in domestic animals using four different minisatellite probes. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics 47: 127–131.Google Scholar
Gonyon, D. S., Mather, R. E., Hines, H. C., Haenlein, G. F. W., Arave, C. W. and Gaunt, S. N. 1987. Associations of bovine blood and milk polymorphisms with lactation traits: Holsteins. Journal of Dairy Science 70: 2585–2598.Google Scholar
Haenlein, G. F. W., Gonyon, D. S., Mather, R. E. and Hines, H. C. 1987. Associations of bovine blbod and milk polymorphisms with lactation traits: Guernseys. Journal of Dairy Science 70: 2599–2609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallerman, E. M., Kashi, Y., Nave, A., Beckmann, J. S. and Soller, M. 1987. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms in dairy cattle and their utilization for genetic improvement. World Review of Animal Production 22: (1), 31–38.Google Scholar
Jeffreys, A. J., Wilson, V. and Thein, S. L. 1985. Hypervariable ‘minisatellite’ regions in human DNA. Nature, London 314: 67–73.Google Scholar
Kahler, A. L. and Wehrhahn, C. F. 1986. Associations between quantitative traits and enzyme loci in the F2 population of a maize hybrid. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 72: 15–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kashi, Y., Soller, M., Hallerman, E. and Beckmann, J. S. 1986. Restriction fragment length polymorphism in dairy cattle genetic improvement. Proceedings of the 3rd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Lincoln, Nebraska, Vol. XII, pp. 57–63.Google Scholar
Litt, M. and Luty, J. A. 1989. A hypervariable microsatellite revealed by in vitro amplification of a dinucleotide repeat within the cardiac muscle actin gene. American Journal of Human Genetics 44: 397–401.Google Scholar
Nakamura, Y., Leppert, M., O'connell, P., Wolff, R., Holm, T., Culver, M., Martin, C., Fuiimoto, E., Hoff, M., Kumlin, E. and White, R. 1987. Variable number of tandem repeat (VNTR) markers for human gene mapping. Science, Washington 235: 1616–1622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen, J. B. 1975. Selection of dairy bulls on half-sister records. Animal Production 20: 1–10.Google Scholar
Paterson, A. H., Lander, E. S., Hewitt, J. D., Petersen, S., Lincoln, S. E. and Tanksley, S. D. 1988. Resolution of quantitative traits into Mendelian factors by using a complete linkage map of restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Nature, London 335: 721–726.Google Scholar
Perret, J., Shia, Y., Fries, R., Vassart, G. and Georges, M. 1990. A polymorphic satellite sequence maps to the pericentric region of the bovine Y chromosome. Genomics In press.Google Scholar
Royle, N. J., Clarkson, R. E., Wong, Z. and Jeffreys, A. J. 1988. Clustering of hypervariable minisatellites in the proterminal regions of human autosomes. Genomics 3: 352–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seidel, G. E. 1981. Superovulation and embryo transfer in cattle. Science, Washington 211: 351–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, C. and Simpson, S. P. 1986. The use of genetic Polymorphisms in livestock improvement. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 103: 205–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soller, M. 1978. The use of loci associated with quantitative traits in dairy cattle improvement. Animal Production 27: 133–139.Google Scholar
Soller, M. and Beckmann, J. S. 1982. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms and genetic improvement. Proceedings of the 2nd World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Madrid, Vol. 6, pp. 396–404.Google Scholar
Soller, M. and Beckmann, J. S. 1983. Genetic polymorphism in varietal identification and genetic improvement. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 67: 25–33.Google Scholar
Soller, M. and Beckmann, J. S. 1985. Restriction fragment length polymorphism and animal genetic improvement. Reviews in Rural Science 6: 10–18.Google Scholar
Soller, M. and Genizi, A. 1978. The efficiency of experimental designs for the detection of linkage between a marker locus and a locus affecting a quantitative trait in segregating populations. Biometrics 34: 47–55.Google Scholar
Stam, P. 1986. The use of marker loci in selection for quantitative characters. In Exploiting New Technologies in Livestock Improvement: Animal Breeding (ed. Smith, C., King, J. W. B. and McKay, J.), pp. 170–182. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stam, P. 1987. Marker genes in selection: biochemical polymorphisms as markers in selection for quantitative traits. Animal Genetics 18: Suppl. I, pp. 97–99.Google Scholar
Vassart, G., Georges, M., Monsieur, R., Brocas, H., Lequarre, A. S. and Christophe, D. 1987. A sequence in M13 phage detects hypervariable minisatellites in human and animal DNA. Science. Washington 235: 638–684.Google Scholar
Weber, J. L. and May, P. E. 1989. Abundant class of human DNA polymorphisms which can be typed using the polymerase chain reaction. American Journal of Human Genetics 44: 388–396.Google Scholar
Weller, J. I. 1987. Mapping and analysis of quantitative trait loci in Lycopersicon (tomato) with the aid of genetic markers using approximate maximum likelihood methods. Heredity 59: 413–421.Google Scholar
Weller, J. I., Kashi, Y. and Soller, M. 1990. Power of “daughter” and “granddaughter” designs for mapping of quantitative traits in dairy cattle using genetic markers. Journal of Dairy Science. In press.Google Scholar
Weller, J. I., Soller, M. and Brody, T. 1988. Linkage analysis of quantitative traits in an interspecific cross of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum × Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium) by means of genetic markers. Genetics, USA 188: 329–339.Google Scholar