Skip to main content
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1992 Jun;131(2):461–469. doi: 10.1093/genetics/131.2.461

Multiplicative Vs. Arbitrary Gene Action in Heterosis

F W Schnell 1, C C Cockerham 1
PMCID: PMC1205018  PMID: 1644280

Abstract

In this article we investigate multiplicative effects between genes in relation to heterosis. The extensive literature on heterosis due to multiplicative effects between characters is reviewed, as is earlier work on the genetic description of heterosis. A two-locus diallelic model of arbitrary gene action is used to derive linear parameters for two multiplicative models. With multiplicative action between loci, epistatic effects are nonlinear functions of one-locus effects and the mean. With completely multiplicative action, the mean and additive effects form similar restrictions for all the rest of the effects. Extensions to more than two loci are indicated. The linear parameters of various models are then used to describe heterosis, which is taken as the difference between respective averages of a cross (F(1)) and its two parent populations (P). The difference (F(2) - P) is also discussed. Two parts of heterosis are distinguished: part I arising from dominance, and part II due to additive X additive (a X a)-epistasis. Heterosis with multiplicative action between loci implies multiplicative accumulation of heterosis present at individual loci in part I, in addition to multiplicative (a X a)-interaction in part II. Heterosis with completely multiplicative action can only be negative (i.e., the F(1) values must be less than the midparent), but the difference (F(2) - P) can be positive under certain conditions. Heterosis without dominance can arise from multiplicative as well as any other nonadditive action between loci, as is exemplified by diminishing return interaction. The discussion enlarges the scope in various directions: the genetic significance of multiplicative models is considered. The description of heterosis is extended to three loci to show that multiplicative action between loci can make part I very large, but not part II. The genetic role of part II is explained. Finally, we compare multiplicative to arbitrary gene action in general, suggesting that the former may serve to measure nonadditivity of gene interactions in the latter.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (915.8 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Charles D R, Smith H H. Distinguishing between Two Types of Gene Action in Quantitative Inheritance. Genetics. 1939 Jan;24(1):34–48. doi: 10.1093/genetics/24.1.34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cockerham C C. An Extension of the Concept of Partitioning Hereditary Variance for Analysis of Covariances among Relatives When Epistasis Is Present. Genetics. 1954 Nov;39(6):859–882. doi: 10.1093/genetics/39.6.859. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cockerham C C. Partitions of Hereditary Variance for Various Genetic Models. Genetics. 1959 Nov;44(6):1141–1148. doi: 10.1093/genetics/44.6.1141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. DICKERSON G. E. Genetic slippage in response to selection for multiple objectives. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1955;20:213–224. doi: 10.1101/sqb.1955.020.01.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dempster E. R. "MOCK DOMINANCE". Science. 1943 May 21;97(2525):464–465. doi: 10.1126/science.97.2525.464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Jinks J L, Jones R M. Estimation of the Components of Heterosis. Genetics. 1958 Mar;43(2):223–234. doi: 10.1093/genetics/43.2.223. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kacser H., Burns J. A. The molecular basis of dominance. Genetics. 1981 Mar-Apr;97(3-4):639–666. doi: 10.1093/genetics/97.3-4.639. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mather K. Complementary and duplicate gene interactions in biometrical genetics. Heredity (Edinb) 1967 Feb;22(1):97–103. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1967.8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Richey F. D. MOCK-DOMINANCE AND HYBRID VIGOR. Science. 1942 Sep 18;96(2490):280–281. doi: 10.1126/science.96.2490.280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Schnell F. W., Geiger H. H. Zur Beeinflussung der Heterosis durch Epistasie. Naturwissenschaften. 1970 Sep;57(9):461–461. doi: 10.1007/BF00607752. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. WILLIAMS W. Heterosis and the genetics of complex characters. Nature. 1959 Aug 15;184:527–530. doi: 10.1038/184527a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES