Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 83, Issue 6–7, pp 813–820 | Cite as

Computer simulation of marker-assisted selection utilizing linkage disequilibrium

  • W. Zhang
  • C. Smith
Originals

Summary

The value of marker-assisted selection (MAS) using linkage disequilibrium between genetic markers and quantitative trait loci (QTL) was examined. To simulate the disequilibrium, four base populations were created, F2, F5, F10 and F20, by random mating from a cross between two inbred lines. Selections were on breeding values estimated from: (1) marker QTL (MQTL) associations (MAS); (2) conventional best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) methods; and (3) a combination of 1 and 2 (COMB). Alternative cases were studied by varying the parameters (heritability, initial linkage disequilibrium, and distribution of QTL effects). A genome with 100 QTL and 100 markers randomly (but equally) spread over 20 chromosomes, each 100 centiMorgans (cM) in length, was generated. Linkage disequilibrium (over 30 replicates) of QTLs with their nearest marker averaged 0.153, 0.104, 0.068, and 0.047 for the four base populations, and fell to 0.035, 0.025, 0.021, and 0.018, respectively, after ten generations of MAS selection (heritability 0.25). The initial linkage disequilibrium had the greatest effect on the genetic gain by MAS with the responses for the base populations F2>F5>F10>F20. Genetic gains by conventional BLUP selection were usually greater than by MAS. However, MAS contributed to the combined selection (COMB) to give appreciably higher genetic responses. Hybridization of selected lines after several generations of selection contributed little to generating further linkage disequilibrium. Detection of markers closer to the QTL will increase the linkage disequilibrium available for selection. Eventually with very close linkage each QTL allele can be uniquely identified in selection, and selection will then be equivalent to selection on the QTLs themselves.

Key words

Marker-assisted selection Linkage disequilibrium BLUP 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beckmann JS, Soller M (1983) Restriction fragment length polymorphisms in genetic improvement: methodologies, mapping and costs. Theor Appl Genet 67:35–43Google Scholar
  2. Dekkers JCM, Dentine MR (1991) Quantitative genetic variation associated with chromosomal markers in segregating populations. Theor Appl Genet 81:212–220Google Scholar
  3. Falconer DS (1989) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 3rd edn. Longman, Harlow, UK, p 19Google Scholar
  4. Fernando RL (1990) Statistical problems in marker assisted selection for QTL. In: Proc 4th World Congr Genet Appl Livestock Prod 13:433–436Google Scholar
  5. Fernando RL, Grossman M (1989) Marker assisted selection using best linear unbiased prediction. Genet Sel Evol 21: 467–477Google Scholar
  6. Georges M, Massey JM (1991) Velogenetics, or the synergistic use of marker assisted selection and germ line manipulation. Theriogenology 35:151–159Google Scholar
  7. Goddard ME (1992) A mixed model for analyses of data on multiple genetic markers. Theor Appl Genet 83:878–886Google Scholar
  8. Haldane JBS (1919) The combination of linkage values and the calculation of distance between loci of linked factors. J Genet 8:299–309Google Scholar
  9. Kashi Y, Hallerman E, Soller M (1990) Marker assisted selection of candidate bulls for progeny testing programmes. Anim Prod 51:63–74Google Scholar
  10. Kennedy BW, Sorensen DA (1988) Properties of mixed model methods for prediction of genetic merit. In: Weir BS, Eisen EJ, Goodman MM, Namkoong G (eds) Quantitative genetics. Sinauer, MA, pp 91–103Google Scholar
  11. Lande R, Thompson R (1990) Efficiency of marker assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits. Genetics 124:743–756Google Scholar
  12. Quaas RL, Pollak EJ (1980) Mixed model methodology for farm and ranch beef cattle testing programs. J Anim Sci 51:1277–1287Google Scholar
  13. Smith C (1967) Improvement of metric traits through specific genetic loci. Anim Prod 9:349–358Google Scholar
  14. Smith C, Simpson SP (1986) The use of polymorphisms in livestock improvement. J Anim Breed Genet 103:205–217Google Scholar
  15. Soller M, Beckmann JS (1983) Genetic polymorphisms in varietal identification and genetic improvement. Theor Appl Genet 67:25–33Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Zhang
    • 1
  • C. Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal and Poultry ScienceUniversity of GuelphGuelphCanada

Personalised recommendations