Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 80, Issue 1, pp 75–80 | Cite as

Genetic evaluation with autosomal and X-chromosomal inheritance

  • R. L. Fernando
  • M. Grossman
Originals

Summary

At present, genetic evaluation in livestock using best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) assumes autosomal inheritance. There is evidence, however, of X-chromosomal inheritance for some traits of economic importance. BLUP can accommodate models that include X-chromosomal in addition to autosomal inheritance. To obtain BLUP with autosomal and X-chromosomal additive inheritance for a population in which allelic frequency is equal in the sexes, and that is in gametic equilibrium, we write yi = x′iβ + ai + si + ei, where yi is the phenotypic value for individual i, x′i, is a vector of constants relating yi to fixed effects, β is a vector of fixed effects, ai is the additive genetic effect for autosomal loci, Si is the additive genetic effect for X-chromosomal loci, and ei is random error. The covariance matrix of ai's is A 2 , where A is the matrix of twice the co-ancestries between relatives for autosomal loci, and σ A 2 is the variance of additive genetic effects for autosomal loci. The covariance matrix of si's is F 2 , where S is a matrix of functions of co-ancestries between relatives for X-chromosomal loci and σ F 2 is the variance of additive genetic effects for X-chromosomal loci for noninbred females. Given the covariance matrices of random effects ai, si, and ei, BLUPs of autosomal and of X-chromosomal additive effects can be obtained using mixed model equations. Recursive rules to construct S and an efficient algorithm to compute its inverse are given.

Key words

X-linkage Covariance Genetic evaluation BLUP 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benyshek LL, Johnson MH, Little DE, Bertrand JK, Kriese LA (1988) Application of an animal model in the United States beef cattle industry. J Dairy Sci 71 [Suppl 2]:35–53Google Scholar
  2. Cowley DE, Atchley WR, Rutledge JJ (1986) Quantitative genetics of Drosophila melangaster. I. Sexual dimorphism in genetic parameters for wing traits. Genetics 114:549–566Google Scholar
  3. Fernando RL, Gianola D (1990) Statistical inferences in populations undergoing selection or non-random mating. In: Gianola D, Hammond K (eds), Advances in statistical methods for genetic improvement of livestock. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York (in press)Google Scholar
  4. Grossman M, Eisen EJ (1989) Inbreeding, coancestry, and co-variance between relatives for X-chromosomal loci. J Hered 80:137–142Google Scholar
  5. Grossman M, Fernando RL (1989) Covariance between relatives for X-chromosomal loci in a population in disequilibrium. Theor Appl Genet 77:311–319Google Scholar
  6. Henderson CR (1953) Estimation of variance and covariance components. Biometrics 9:226–252Google Scholar
  7. Henderson CR (1973) Sire evaluation and genetic trends. In: Proceedings of the Animal Breeding and Genetics Symposium in Honor of Dr. Jay L. Lush. Am Soc Anim Sci and Am Dairy Sci Assn, Champaign/IL, pp 10–41Google Scholar
  8. Henderson CR (1976) A simple method for computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix used in prediction of breeding values. Biometrics 32:69–83Google Scholar
  9. Im S, Fernando RL, Gianola D (1989) Likelihood inferences in animal breeding under selection: a missing data theory view point. Genet Sel Evol 21:399–414Google Scholar
  10. Jerome FN, Henderson CR, King SC (1956) Heritabilities, gene interactions, and correlations associated with certain traits in the domestic fowl. Poultry Sci 35:995–1013Google Scholar
  11. Levitan M (1988) Textbook of human genetics, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 158–164Google Scholar
  12. Lush JL (1945) Animal breeding plans, 3rd edn. Iowa State University Press, Ames/IA, pp 352–356Google Scholar
  13. Quaas RL, Anderson RD, Gilmour AR (1984) BLUP school handbook: Use of mixed models for prediction and for estimation of (co)variance components. University of New England, Australia, pp 1–76Google Scholar
  14. Robinson JAB, Chesnais JP (1988) Application of the animal model on a national basis to the evaluation of Canadian livestock. J Dairy Sci 71 [Suppl 2]:70–78Google Scholar
  15. Schaeffer LR, Kennedy BW, Gibson JP (1989) The inverse of the gametic relationship matrix. J Dairy Sci 72:1266–1272Google Scholar
  16. Thomas CH, Blow WL, Cockerham CC, Glazener EW (1958) The heritability of body weight, gain, feed consumption, and feed efficiency in broilers. Poultry Sci 37:862–869Google Scholar
  17. VanRaden PM (1987) Evaluations of sires based on sons and on maternal grandsons. J Dairy Sci 70 [Suppl 1]:185Google Scholar
  18. Wiggans GR, Misztal I, Van Vleck LD (1988) Implementation of an animal model for genetic evaluation of dairy cattle in the United States. J Dairy Sci 71 [Suppl 2]:54–69Google Scholar
  19. Wright S (1933) Inbreeding and homozygosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 19:411–420Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. L. Fernando
    • 1
  • M. Grossman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal SciencesUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations