Skip to main content
PMC home page
Genetics logoLink to Genetics
. 1978 Apr;88(4):781–811. doi: 10.1093/genetics/88.4.781

Single-Trait and Antagonistic Index Selection for Litter Size and Body Weight in Mice

E J Eisen 1
PMCID: PMC1275570  PMID: 17248819

Abstract

Individual selection based on female performance only was conducted in four lines of mice: L+ for increased litter size, W+ for increased 6-week body weight, L-W+ for a selection index aimed at decreasing litter size and increasing 6-week body weight and L+W- for a selection index aimed at increasing litter size and decreasing 6-week body weight. A fifth line (K) served as an unselected control. All litters were standardized to eight mice at one day of age. Expected heritability was based on twice the regression of offspring on dam (h2d), which contains additive genetic variance due to direct (σ2Ao) and maternal (σ2Am) effects and their covariance (σAoAm). Responses and correlated responses were measured either deviated (method 1) or not deviated (method 2) from the control line. Realized heritabilities (h2R) for litter size were 0.19 ± 0.04 (1) and 0.16 ± 0.03 (2), which were similar to h 2d of 0.17 ± 0.04. The h2 R for 6-week body weight of 0.55 ± 0.07 (1) and 0.44 ± 0.07 (2) agreed with h2d of 0.42 ± 0.02. Realized genetic correlations (r*GR) between litter size and 6-week body weight calculated from the double-selection experiment were 0.52 ± 0.10 (1) and 0.52 ± 0.13 (2), which were not significantly different from the base population estimate of r* Gd = 0.63 ± 0.14. Divergence (L-W + minus L+W-) in the antagonistic index selection lines was 0.21 ± 0.01 index units (I = 0.305 PW - 0.436 PL, where P W and PL are the phenotypic values for 6-week body weight and litter size, respectively.). The h2 R of index units of 0.14 ± 0.02 calculated from divergence agreed with h2d of 0.14 ± 0.04. Divergences in litter size (-0.19 ± 0.07) and 6-week body weight (0.46 ± 0.10) were in the expected direction. Antagonistic index selection yielded about one-half the expected divergence in litter size, while divergence in 6-week body weight was only slightly less than expected. Realized genetic correlations indicated that litter size, 6-week body weight and index units each showed positive pleiotropy with 3-week body weight, postweaning gain and weight at vaginal introitus and negative pleiotropy with age at vaginal introitus. Sex ratio and several components of fitness (days from joining to parturition, percent fertile matings and percent perinatal survival) did not change significantly in the selected lines.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (1.8 MB).

Selected References

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

  1. Bakker H., Nagai J., Eisen E. J. Genetic differences in age and weight at sexual maturation in female mice selected for rapid growth rate. J Anim Sci. 1977 Feb;44(2):203–212. doi: 10.2527/jas1977.442203x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bateman N. Ovulation and post-ovulational losses in strains of mice selected from large and small litters. Genet Res. 1966 Oct;8(2):229–241. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300010089. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berger P. J., Harvey W. R. Realized genetic parameters from index selection in mice. J Anim Sci. 1975 Jan;40(1):38–47. doi: 10.2527/jas1975.40138x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Doolittle D. P., Wilson S. P., Hulbert L. L. A comparison of multiple trait selection methods in the mouse. J Hered. 1972 Nov-Dec;63(6):366–372. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a108319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Eklund J., Bradford G. E. Genetic analysis of a strain of mice plateaued for litter size. Genetics. 1977 Mar;85(3):529–542. doi: 10.1093/genetics/85.3.529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. FALCONER D. S. Patterns of response in selection experiments with mice. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 1955;20:178–196. doi: 10.1101/sqb.1955.020.01.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hazel L N. The Genetic Basis for Constructing Selection Indexes. Genetics. 1943 Nov;28(6):476–490. doi: 10.1093/genetics/28.6.476. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hill W. G. Design and efficiency of selection experiments for estimating genetic parameters. Biometrics. 1971 Jun;27(2):293–311. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Jones L. P., Frankham R., Barker J. S. The effects of population size and selection intesnity in selection for a quantitative character in Drosophila. II. Long-term response to selection. Genet Res. 1968 Dec;12(3):249–266. doi: 10.1017/s001667230001185x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Miller R H, Legates J E, Cockerham C C. Estimation of Nonadditive Hereditary Variance in Traits of Mice. Genetics. 1963 Feb;48(2):177–188. doi: 10.1093/genetics/48.2.177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Nordskog A. W., Tolman H. S., Casey D. W., Lin C. Y. Selection in small populations of chickens. Poult Sci. 1974 May;53(3):1188–1219. doi: 10.3382/ps.0531188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. RAHNEFELD G. W., BOYLAN W. J., COMSTOCK R. E. Genetic correlation between growth rate and litter size in mice. Can J Genet Cytol. 1962 Sep;4:289–295. doi: 10.1139/g62-037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rahnefeld G. W., Comstock R. E., Singh M., Napuket S. R. Genetic Correlation between Growth Rate and Litter Size in Mice. Genetics. 1966 Dec;54(6):1423–1429. doi: 10.1093/genetics/54.6.1423. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Schilling P., North W., Bogart R. The effect of sire on litter size in mice. J Hered. 1968 Nov-Dec;59(6):351–352. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a107743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES