Abstract

Estimating the genetic variance available for traits informs us about a population’s ability to evolve in response to novel selective challenges. In selfing species, theory predicts a loss of genetic diversity that could lead to an evolutionary dead-end, but empirical support remains scarce. Genetic variability in a trait is estimated by correlating the phenotypic resemblance with the proportion of the genome that two relatives share identical by descent (‘realized relatedness’). The latter is traditionally predicted from pedigrees (ΦA: expected value) but can also be estimated using molecular markers (average number of alleles shared). Nevertheless, evolutionary biologists, unlike animal breeders, remain cautious about using marker-based relatedness coefficients to study complex phenotypic traits in populations. In this paper, we review published results comparing five different pedigree-free methods and use simulations to test individual-based models (hereafter called animal models) using marker-based relatedness coefficients, with a special focus on the influence of mating systems. Our literature review confirms that Ritland’s regression method is unreliable, but suggests that animal models with marker-based estimates of relatedness and genomic selection are promising and that more testing is required. Our simulations show that using molecular markers instead of pedigrees in animal models seriously worsens the estimation of heritability in outcrossing populations, unless a very large number of loci is available. In selfing populations the results are less biased. More generally, populations with high identity disequilibrium (consanguineous or bottlenecked populations) could be propitious for using marker-based animal models, but are also more likely to deviate from the standard assumptions of quantitative genetics models (non-additive variance).

Highlights

  • The genetic variance available for a trait in a population informs us about its potential ability to evolve in response to novel selective challenges [1]

  • We report results from simulations aimed at further comparing the performance of individual-based models using pairwise relatedness predicted from the pedigree versus molecular markers, with a special focus on how mating systems affects the efficiency of these methods

  • We found a significant difference between pedigree-based estimates and marker-based estimates for the Ritland method (x2 = 22.2; p = 2.5610206), the relatedness classes (x2 = 5.9; p = 0.015) and the reconstructed pedigrees (x2 = 29.8; p = 4.7610208) but not for the animal model (x2 = 0.04; p = 0.836) or genomic selection (x2 = 0.001; p = 0.977)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The genetic variance available for a trait in a population informs us about its potential ability to evolve in response to novel selective challenges [1]. One would ideally like to know the actual proportion of loci controlling the trait that are identical by descent. This ‘realised relatedness’ is the outcome of a stochastic process (due to Mendelian segregation and linkage) with a variance that depends on genome size [4,5,6]. Because causal loci are unknown, we traditionally use the expected value of identity by descent given the ancestry [7,8] It can be deduced from a pedigree (hereafter called WA), either in an experiment using specific relatedness classes (e.g. full sib-half sib design) or in a population with pedigree data ranging over several generations [9]. An alternative solution is to estimate the genome-wide average of the realised relatedness between individuals using molecular markers [13]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.