Estimation of genetic variation in residual variance in female and male broiler chickens

Animal

Volumn 3, Issue 12, 2009, Pages 1673-1680

  Mulder, H A ^a   Hill, W G ^b   Vereijken, A ^c   Veerkamp, R F ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^c Hendrix Genetics   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Body weight; Broilers; Genetic heterogeneity of residual variance; Genetic parameters; Uniformity

Indexed keywords

ANIMALIA; GALLUS GALLUS;

EID: 70450237683     PISSN: 17517311     EISSN: 1751732X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S1751731109990668     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Akaike H 1973. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory (ed. BN Petrov and F Csaki), pp. 267-281. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, Hungary.
2. Bolet G, Garreau H, Joly T, Theau-Clement M, Falieres J, Hurtaud J and Bodin L 2007. Genetic homogenisation of birth weight in rabbits: Indirect selection response for uterine horn characteristics. Livestock Science 111, 28-32.
3. Cardin S and Minvielle F 1986. Selection on phenotypic variation of pupa weight in Tribolium castaneum. Canadian Journal of Genetics and Cytology 28, 856-861.
4. Falconer DS and Robertson A 1956. Selection for environmental variability of body size in mice. Zeitschrift fur Inductive Abstammungs- und Vererbungslehre 87, 385-391.
5. Garreau H, Bolet G, Larzul C, Robert-Granie C, Saleil G, SanCristobal M and Bodin L 2008. Results of four generations of a canalizing selection for rabbit birth weight. Livestock Science 119, 55-62.
6. Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR and Thompson R 2006. ASREML User Guide Release 2. 0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, UK.
7. Gutierrez JP, Nieto B, Piqueras P, Ibanez N and Salgado C 2006. Genetic parameters for canalisation analysis of litter size and litter weight traits at birth in mice. Genetics Selection Evolution 38, 445-462.
8. Hill WG and Zhang X-S 2004. Effects of phenotypic variability of directional selection arising through genetic differences in residual variability. Genetical Research, Cambridge 83, 121-132.
9. Hohenboken WD 1985. The manipulation of variation in quantitative traits: A review of possible genetic strategies. Journal of Animal Science 60, 101-110.
10. Ibanez-Escriche N, Moreno A, Nieto B, Piqueras P, Salgado C and Gutierrez JP 2008a. Genetic parameters related to environmental variability of weight traits in a selection experiment for weight gain in mice; signs of correlated canalised response. Genetics Selection Evolution 40, 279-293.
11. Ibanez-Escriche N, Varona L, Sorensen D and Noguera JL 2008b. A study of heterogeneity of environmental variance for slaughter weight in pigs. Animal 2, 19-26.
12. Kaufman PK, Enfield FD and Comstock RE 1977. Stabilizing selection for pupa weight in Tribolium castaneum. Genetics 87, 327-341.
13. Larzul C, Le Roy P, Tribout T, Gogue J and SanCristobal M 2006. Canalizing selection on ultimate pH in pigs: Consequences on meat quality. In Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Communication 13-109, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
14. Lidauer M and Stranden I 1999. Fast and flexible program for genetic evaluation in dairy cattle. Interbull Bulletin 20, 20-25.
15. Mackay TFC and Lyman RF 2005. Drosophila bristles and the nature of quantitative genetic variation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360, 1513-1527.
16. Mulder HA, Bijma P and Hill WG 2007. Prediction of breeding values and selection responses with genetic heterogeneity of environmental variance. Genetics 175, 1895-1910
17. Mulder HA, Bijma P and Hill WG 2008. Selection for uniformity in livestock by exploiting genetic heterogeneity of residual variance. Genetics Selection Evolution 40, 37-59.
18. Odegard J, Madsen P, Gianola D, Klemetsdal G, Jensen J, Heringstad B and Korsgaard IR 2005. A Bayesian threshold-normal mixture model for analysis of a continuous mastitis-related trait. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2652-2659.
19. Rendel JM, Sheldon BL and Finlay DE 1966. Selection for canalization of the scute phenotype. II. American Naturalist 100, 13-31.
20. Ros M, Sorensen D, Waagepetersen R, Dupont-Nivet M, SanCristobal M, Bonnett JC and Mallard J 2004. Evidence for genetic control of adult weight plasticity in the snail Helix aspersa. Genetics 168, 2089-2097.
21. Rowe SJ, White IMS, Avendano S and Hill WG 2006. Genetic heterogeneity of residual variance in broiler chickens. Genetics Selection Evolution 38, 617-635.
22. SanCristobal-Gaudy M, Bodin L, Elsen JM and Chevalet C 2001. Genetic components of litter size variability in sheep. Genetics Selection Evolution 33, 249-271.
23. SanCristobal-Gaudy M, Elsen JM, Bodin L and Chevalet C 1998. Prediction of the response to a selection for canalisation of a continuous trait in animal breeding. Genetics Selection Evolution 30, 423-451.
24. Sorensen D and Waagepetersen R 2003. Normal linear models with genetically structured residual variance heterogeneity: A case study. Genetical Research, Cambridge 82, 207-222.
25. Schwarz G 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6, 461-464.
26. Wilks SS 1938. The large-sample distribution of the likelihood ratio for testing composite hypotheses. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 9, 60-62.
27. Wolc A, White IMS, Avendano S and Hill WG 2009. Genetic variability in residual variation of body weight and conformation scores in broiler chickens. Poultry Science 88, 1156-1161.