| |
|
|
 | Acesso ao texto completo restrito à biblioteca da Embrapa Caprinos e Ovinos. Para informações adicionais entre em contato com cnpc.biblioteca@embrapa.br. |
|
Registro Completo |
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Caprinos e Ovinos. |
|
Data corrente: |
06/10/2008 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
18/08/2023 |
|
Autoria: |
BERNARDO, R. |
|
Título: |
Selection response with marker-based assortative mating. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
1999 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
Crop Science, v. 39, n. 1, p. 69-73, Jan./Feb. 1999. |
|
DOI: |
https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1999.0011183X003900010011x |
|
Idioma: |
Inglês |
|
Conteúdo: |
Abstract: Assortative mating can increase additive variance (VA) and, consequently, selection response. Marker-based assortative mating (MAM? the mating of individuals that have similar marker genotypes?has not been studied. My objectives in this simulation study were to (i) compare the selection response associated with MAM, phenotypic assortative mating (PAM), and random mating (RM) of selected individuals and (ii) determine when MAM will be most useful breeding programs. I simulated 25 generations of selection among 200 individuals, followed by MAM, PAM, or RM, in a cross between two inbreds. A total of 100 codominant marker loci and 100 quantitative trait loci (QTL) were randomly distributed across 10 chromosomes, each 100 centimorgans (cM) long. The effects of QTL were additive and followed an exponential distribution. Cumulative selection response was determined for different initial levels of heritability (h2 = 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80) and different numbers of individuals selected (N = 4, 8,16, and 32) in each generation. Compared with RM, MAM resulted in slight increases of 3 to 8% in selection response during the first several generations, particularly when h2 = 0.20 and N = 32. The PAM procedure led to slight increases of 2 to 4% when h2 = 0.80 and N = 32. Any advantage of assortative mating over RM dissipated by Generation 8 for MAM and Generation 15 for PAM. The loss of QTL heterozygosity was much greater with MAM than with PAM or RM. For long-term improvement, selected individuals should be intermated by RM. The MAM procedure will be most useful for short-term improvement in a biparental cross, particularly when h2 and selection pressure are low. MenosAbstract: Assortative mating can increase additive variance (VA) and, consequently, selection response. Marker-based assortative mating (MAM? the mating of individuals that have similar marker genotypes?has not been studied. My objectives in this simulation study were to (i) compare the selection response associated with MAM, phenotypic assortative mating (PAM), and random mating (RM) of selected individuals and (ii) determine when MAM will be most useful breeding programs. I simulated 25 generations of selection among 200 individuals, followed by MAM, PAM, or RM, in a cross between two inbreds. A total of 100 codominant marker loci and 100 quantitative trait loci (QTL) were randomly distributed across 10 chromosomes, each 100 centimorgans (cM) long. The effects of QTL were additive and followed an exponential distribution. Cumulative selection response was determined for different initial levels of heritability (h2 = 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80) and different numbers of individuals selected (N = 4, 8,16, and 32) in each generation. Compared with RM, MAM resulted in slight increases of 3 to 8% in selection response during the first several generations, particularly when h2 = 0.20 and N = 32. The PAM procedure led to slight increases of 2 to 4% when h2 = 0.80 and N = 32. Any advantage of assortative mating over RM dissipated by Generation 8 for MAM and Generation 15 for PAM. The loss of QTL heterozygosity was much greater with MAM than with PAM or RM. For long-term improvement, sele... Mostrar Tudo |
|
Palavras-Chave: |
Melhoramento genético vegeal; Quantitative trait loci mapping; Selection responses. |
|
Thesagro: |
Marcador Molecular; Planta Forrageira; Seleção Genética. |
|
Thesaurus Nal: |
Genetic markers; Genotype; Plant breeding; Plant genetic resources; Plant genetics; Quantitative trait loci. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
G Melhoramento Genético |
|
Marc: |
LEADER 02551naa a2200277 a 4500
001 1533764
005 2023-08-18
008 1999 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
024 7 $ahttps://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1999.0011183X003900010011x$2DOI
100 1 $aBERNARDO, R.
245 $aSelection response with marker-based assortative mating.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c1999
520 $aAbstract: Assortative mating can increase additive variance (VA) and, consequently, selection response. Marker-based assortative mating (MAM? the mating of individuals that have similar marker genotypes?has not been studied. My objectives in this simulation study were to (i) compare the selection response associated with MAM, phenotypic assortative mating (PAM), and random mating (RM) of selected individuals and (ii) determine when MAM will be most useful breeding programs. I simulated 25 generations of selection among 200 individuals, followed by MAM, PAM, or RM, in a cross between two inbreds. A total of 100 codominant marker loci and 100 quantitative trait loci (QTL) were randomly distributed across 10 chromosomes, each 100 centimorgans (cM) long. The effects of QTL were additive and followed an exponential distribution. Cumulative selection response was determined for different initial levels of heritability (h2 = 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80) and different numbers of individuals selected (N = 4, 8,16, and 32) in each generation. Compared with RM, MAM resulted in slight increases of 3 to 8% in selection response during the first several generations, particularly when h2 = 0.20 and N = 32. The PAM procedure led to slight increases of 2 to 4% when h2 = 0.80 and N = 32. Any advantage of assortative mating over RM dissipated by Generation 8 for MAM and Generation 15 for PAM. The loss of QTL heterozygosity was much greater with MAM than with PAM or RM. For long-term improvement, selected individuals should be intermated by RM. The MAM procedure will be most useful for short-term improvement in a biparental cross, particularly when h2 and selection pressure are low.
650 $aGenetic markers
650 $aGenotype
650 $aPlant breeding
650 $aPlant genetic resources
650 $aPlant genetics
650 $aQuantitative trait loci
650 $aMarcador Molecular
650 $aPlanta Forrageira
650 $aSeleção Genética
653 $aMelhoramento genético vegeal
653 $aQuantitative trait loci mapping
653 $aSelection responses
773 $tCrop Science$gv. 39, n. 1, p. 69-73, Jan./Feb. 1999.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Caprinos e Ovinos (CNPC) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
URL |
Voltar
|
|
|
Registro Completo
|
Biblioteca(s): |
Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental. |
|
Data corrente: |
21/07/2022 |
|
Data da última atualização: |
02/08/2022 |
|
Tipo da produção científica: |
Capítulo em Livro Técnico-Científico |
|
Autoria: |
SANTOS, A. C. dos; SILVA, L. de J. de S.; MENEGHETTI, G. A. |
|
Afiliação: |
ALESSANDRO CARVALHO DOS SANTOS, UFAM; LINDOMAR DE JESUS DE SOUSA SILVA, CPAA; GILMAR ANTONIO MENEGHETTI, CPAA. |
|
Título: |
O cultivo de peixes no estado do Amazonas. |
|
Ano de publicação: |
2022 |
|
Fonte/Imprenta: |
In: SILVA, L. de J. de S.; MENEGHETTI, G. A.; PINHEIRO, J. O. C. (ed.). O despertar para a ciência: contribuições dos alunos de iniciação científica para a pesquisa socioeconômica na Amazônia. Brasília, DF: Embrapa, 2022. |
|
Páginas: |
p. 111-148. |
|
Idioma: |
Português |
|
Conteúdo: |
Neste capítulo descrevemos o cultivo de peixes considerando as espécies e a quantidade produzida no Amazonas, segundo dados da Pesquisa da Pecuária Municipal do IBGE (2020). Também mostramos os principais produtores por mesorregião no estado, considerando a espécie cultivada. A pesquisa é definida como bibliográfica, com a coleta de informações presentes em artigos, documentos técnicos e dados secundários, coletados em instituições de pesquisa, e exploratória, já que visa ampliar a familiaridade, levantar e formular hipóteses dos cultivos da espécie, situar a quantidade e territorialização dos cultivos no estado. |
|
Thesagro: |
Peixe; Piscicultura. |
|
Categoria do assunto: |
-- |
|
URL: |
https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/237890/1/Livro-bolsista-final-atual-p111.pdf
|
|
Marc: |
LEADER 01314naa a2200181 a 4500
001 2144858
005 2022-08-02
008 2022 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d
100 1 $aSANTOS, A. C. dos
245 $aO cultivo de peixes no estado do Amazonas.$h[electronic resource]
260 $c2022
300 $ap. 111-148.
520 $aNeste capítulo descrevemos o cultivo de peixes considerando as espécies e a quantidade produzida no Amazonas, segundo dados da Pesquisa da Pecuária Municipal do IBGE (2020). Também mostramos os principais produtores por mesorregião no estado, considerando a espécie cultivada. A pesquisa é definida como bibliográfica, com a coleta de informações presentes em artigos, documentos técnicos e dados secundários, coletados em instituições de pesquisa, e exploratória, já que visa ampliar a familiaridade, levantar e formular hipóteses dos cultivos da espécie, situar a quantidade e territorialização dos cultivos no estado.
650 $aPeixe
650 $aPiscicultura
700 1 $aSILVA, L. de J. de S.
700 1 $aMENEGHETTI, G. A.
773 $tIn: SILVA, L. de J. de S.; MENEGHETTI, G. A.; PINHEIRO, J. O. C. (ed.). O despertar para a ciência: contribuições dos alunos de iniciação científica para a pesquisa socioeconômica na Amazônia. Brasília, DF: Embrapa, 2022.
Download
Esconder MarcMostrar Marc Completo |
|
Registro original: |
Embrapa Amazônia Ocidental (CPAA) |
|
|
Biblioteca |
ID |
Origem |
Tipo/Formato |
Classificação |
Cutter |
Registro |
Volume |
Status |
Fechar
|
| Expressão de busca inválida. Verifique!!! |
|
|
