Non-additive genetic effects in animal selection

Journal of Applied Genetics

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 467-478

  Łukaszewicz, Marek ^a  

^a INSTITUTE OF GENETICS AND ANIMAL BREEDING   (Poland)

Author keywords

Additive effects; Animal selection; Crossbreds; Dominance effects; Epistasis; Purebreds

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347036584     PISSN: 12341983     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. BULMER M.G. (1985). The mathematical theory of quantitative genetics. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
2. BOER DE L.J.M, HÖSCHELE I. (1993). Genetic evaluation methods for populations with dominance and inbreeding. Theor. Appl. Genet. 86: 245.
3. CHANG H.A. (1988). Studies on estimation of genetic variances under non-additive gene action. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana, USA.
4. CULBERTSON M.S., MABRY J. W., MISZTAL I., GENGLER N. (1997). Estimation of dominance variance in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 75(Suppl.): 144 (Abstr.).
5. CUNNINGHAM E.P., SYRSTAD O. (1987). Crossbreeding bos indicus and bos taurus for milk production in the tropics. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 68: 90.
6. DICKERSON G.E. (1969). Experimental approaches in utilizing breed resources. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 37: 191-202.
7. DICKERSON G.E. (1973). Inbreeding and heterosis in animals. In: Proceedings Anim. Breed, and Genet. Symp. in Honour of J.L. Lush. Amer. Soc. Anim. Sci.: 54-76.
8. FALCONER D.S. (1981). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics. 2nd ed. Longman, London.
9. FISHER R.A. (1931). The evolution of dominance. Biol. Rev. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 6: 345-368.
10. GENGLER N., MISZTAL I., BERTRAND J.K., CULBERTSON M.S. (1998). Relationship between estimates of heterosis and dominance variance for post-weaning gain in US Limousin cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 76: 2515-2520.
11. HAYES B.J., MILLER S.P. (2000). Mate selection strategy to exploit across- and within-breed dominance variation. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 117(5): 347-359.
12. HENDERSON C.R. (1989). Prediction of merits of potential matings from sire-maternal grandsire models with nonadditive genetic effects. J. Dairy Sci. 72: 2592.
13. HÖSCHELE I., VANRADEN P.M. (1991). Rapid inversion of dominance relationship matrices for noninbred populations by including sire by dam subclass effects. J. Dairy Sci. 74: 557.
14. KENNEDY B.W., SCHAEFFER L.R., SORENSEN D.A. (1988). Genetic properties of animal models. J. Dairy Sci. 71(Suppl. 2): 17.
15. KINGHORN B. (1980). The expression of "recombination loss" in quantitative traits. Z. Tierzüchtg. Züchtgsbiol. 97: 138-143.
16. KINGHORN B. (1982). Genetic effects in crossbreeding. I. Models of merit. Z. Tierzüchtg. Züchtgsbiol. 99: 59-68.
17. KINGHORN B. (1983). Genetic effects in crossbreeding. III. Epistatic loss in crossbred mice. Z. Tierzüchtg. Züchtgsbiol. 100: 209-222.
18. KLAASKATE E.J.H., VANRADEN P.M., SCHUTZ M.M. (1994). Estimates of nonadditive genetic variation for somatic cell score, longevity, and yield traits of Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 72 (Suppl. 1): 146.
19. LAWLOR T.J., WEIGEL K.A., MISZTAL I. (1993). Implications of incorporating inbreeding information into animal model evaluations for type. J. Dairy Sci. 76(Suppl. 1): 292.
20. MEHRABANI-YEGANCH H., GIBSON J.P., SCHAEFFER L.R. (2000). Including coefficients of inbreeding in BLUP evaluation and its effect on response to selection. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 117(3): 145-151.
21. MIELENZ N., SCHÜLER L., GROENEVELD E. (2000). Simultane Zuchtwertschätzung mit Reinzucht- und Kreuzungsleistungen unter Dominanz. Archiv. Tierzucht. 43(1): 87-98.
22. MISZTAL I., FERNANDO R.I., GROSSMAN M., LAWLOR T.J., LUKASZEWICZ M. (1995). Dominance and epistatic effects in genetic evaluation of farm animals. Anim. Sci. Papers Rep. 13(4): 251-266.
23. MISZTAL I., LAWLOR T.J., FERNANDO R.L. (1997). Studies on dominance models by method R for stature of Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 80: 975-978.
24. RODRIGUEZ-ALMEIDA F.A., VAN VLECK L.D., WILHAM R.L., NORTHCUTT S.L. (1995). Estimation of non-additive genetic variances in three synthetic lines of beef cattle using an animal model. J. Anim. Sci. 73:1002.
25. SHERIDAN A.K. (1980). A new explanation for egg production heterosis in crosses between White Leghorn and Australorps. Br. Poult. Sci. 21(2): 85-88.
26. SHERIDAN A.K. (1981). Crossbreeding and heterosis. Anim. Breed. Abstr. 49(3): 131-144.
27. STEFANO DE A.L., HÖSCHELE I. (1992). Utilization of dominance variance through mate allocation strategies. J. Dairy Sci. 75:1680.
28. TEMPELMAN R.J., BURNSIDE E.J. (1990). Additive and nonadditive genetic variation for production traits in Canadian Holsteins. J. Dairy Sci. 73: 2206.
29. UIMARI P., KENNEDY B.W. (1990). Mixed model methodology to estimate additive and dominance genetic values under complete dominance and inbreeding. Proc. 4th World Cong. Genet. Applied Livestock Prod. XIII: 297.
30. VANRADEN P.M., HÖSCHELE I. (1991). Rapid inversion of additive by additive relationship matrices for noninbred populations by including sire-dam combination effects J. Dairy Sci.: 74: 570.
31. VANRADEN P.M., LAWLOR T.J., SHORT T.H., HÖSCHELE I. (1992). Use of reproductive technology to estimate variances and predict effects of gene interactions. J. Dairy Sci. 75: 2892.
32. VARONA L., MISZTAL I. (1999). Prediction of parental dominance combinations for planned matings, methodology, and simulation results. J. Dairy Sci. 82(10): 2186-2191.