4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Optimization of factorial mating designs for inference on heritability in fish species

期刊

AQUACULTURE
卷 204, 期 3-4, 页码 361-370

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0044-8486(01)00839-0

关键词

optimization; genetic parameters; heritability; factorial mating

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microsatellites allow pedigrees to be redrawn in groups of mixed families. However, genotyping costs are still high and experiments deserve new optimizations based on total number of genotyped offspring. Using stochastic simulations, this paper compares and optimizes three factorial or partly factorial mating designs for inference on heritability: FF: full factorial: s sires, each mated with s dams (s(2) families) FD: s sires, each mated with two dams (2s families) BH: described by Berg and Henryon [A comparison of mating designs for inference on genetic parameters in fish. Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress on Genetic Applied to Livestock Production, Armidale, Australia, 11-16th January, 27, 115]: s sires mated with s dams: sire 1 with dams 1, 2; sire 2 with dams 2, 3... sire S with dams 1, S (2s families). A quantitative trait is simulated according to a strictly additive, polygenic model. Two levels for number of genotyped offspring (NO = 300 or 1000) and three levels for true heritability (h(2) = 0.1, 0.25 and 0.5) are considered. For each NO-h(2) combination, all possible couples number of families (NF)/family size were studied to find the one giving the most precise estimation of heritability. Standard deviation of heritability was calculated over 5000 repetitions in each situation. In most cases, FF designs are less interesting than FD and BH ones. FD designs are more precise than BH designs, except for NO = 1000 and h(2) = 0.5. Optimum family size is similar for FD and BH designs and both NOs: 3-5 offspring per family for h(2) = 0.5, 5-8 offspring per family for h(2) = 0.25 and 12-20 offspring per family for h(2) = 0. 1. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据