Genomic contributions in livestock gene introgression programmes

被引:0
|
作者
Eileen Wall
Peter M Visscher
Frédéric Hospital
John A Woolliams
机构
[1] University of Edinburgh,Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, Ashworth Laboratories
[2] Roslin Institute,Station de génétique végétale
[3] INRA/UPS/INA-PG,undefined
[4] Ferme du Moulon,undefined
关键词
introgression; genomic contributions; linkage drag; backcross; genetic lag;
D O I
10.1186/1297-9686-37-4-291
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The composition of the genome after introgression of a marker gene from a donor to a recipient breed was studied using analytical and simulation methods. Theoretical predictions of proportional genomic contributions, including donor linkage drag, from ancestors used at each generation of crossing after an introgression programme agreed closely with simulated results. The obligate drag, the donor genome surrounding the target locus that cannot be removed by subsequent selection, was also studied. It was shown that the number of backcross generations and the length of the chromosome affected proportional genomic contributions to the carrier chromosomes. Population structure had no significant effect on ancestral contributions and linkage drag but it did have an effect on the obligate drag whereby larger offspring groups resulted in smaller obligate drag. The implications for an introgression programme of the number of backcross generations, the population structure and the carrier chromosome length are discussed. The equations derived describing contributions to the genome from individuals from a given generation provide a framework to predict the genomic composition of a population after the introgression of a favourable donor allele. These ancestral contributions can be assigned a value and therefore allow the prediction of genetic lag.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Genomic contributions in livestock gene introgression programmes
    Wall, E
    Visscher, PM
    Hospital, F
    Woolliams, JA
    [J]. GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2005, 37 (03) : 291 - 313
  • [2] GENE INACTIVATION AND NONMEIOTIC ALLELE INTROGRESSION IN LIVESTOCK SPECIES USING TALENS
    Fahrenkrug, Scott C.
    Tan, Wenfang
    Lillico, Simon G.
    Stverakova, Dana
    Proudfoot, Chris
    Williamson, Gayle
    Long, Charles R.
    Whitelaw, Bruce A.
    Carlson, Daniel F.
    [J]. REPRODUCTION FERTILITY AND DEVELOPMENT, 2013, 25 (01) : 318 - 318
  • [3] Genetic benefits of genomic selection breeding programmes considering foreign sire contributions
    Matthews, Daragh
    Kearney, John F.
    Cromie, Andrew R.
    Hely, Fiona S.
    Amer, Peter R.
    [J]. GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2019, 51 (1)
  • [4] Genetic benefits of genomic selection breeding programmes considering foreign sire contributions
    Daragh Matthews
    John F. Kearney
    Andrew R. Cromie
    Fiona S. Hely
    Peter R. Amer
    [J]. Genetics Selection Evolution, 51
  • [5] Gene inactivation and non-meiotic allele introgression in livestock species using TALENs
    Fahrenkrug, Scott C.
    [J]. TRANSGENIC RESEARCH, 2013, 22 (01) : 214 - 214
  • [6] Avian introgression in the genomic era
    Jente Ottenburghs
    Robert H.S.kraus
    Pim Van Hooft
    Sipke E.van Wieren
    Ronald C.Ydenberg
    Herbert H.T.Prins
    [J]. Avian Research, 2017, 8 (04) : 181 - 191
  • [7] Interpreting the genomic landscape of introgression
    Martin, Simon H.
    Jiggins, Chris D.
    [J]. CURRENT OPINION IN GENETICS & DEVELOPMENT, 2017, 47 : 69 - 74
  • [8] Avian introgression in the genomic era
    Ottenburghs, Jente
    Kraus, Robert H. S.
    van Hooft, Pim
    van Wieren, Sipke E.
    Ydenberg, Ronald C.
    Prins, Herbert H. T.
    [J]. AVIAN RESEARCH, 2017, 8
  • [9] A fungal invasion is enhanced by hybridization and gene introgression: Ecological and evolutionary implications of genomic admixing
    Gonthier, P.
    Sillo, F.
    Giordano, L.
    Garbelotto, M. M.
    [J]. PHYTOPATHOLOGY, 2018, 108 (10)
  • [10] A genomic view of introgression and hybrid speciation
    Baack, Eric J.
    Rieseberg, Loren H.
    [J]. CURRENT OPINION IN GENETICS & DEVELOPMENT, 2007, 17 (06) : 513 - 518