» Articles » PMID: 16596449

Mind the Gap: Analysis of Marker-assisted Breeding Strategies for Inbred Mouse Strains

Overview
Journal Mamm Genome
Specialty Genetics
Date 2006 Apr 6
PMID 16596449
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The development of congenic mouse strains is the principal approach for confirming and fine mapping quantitative trait loci, as well as for comparing the phenotypic effect of a transgene or gene-targeted disruption between different inbred mouse strains. The traditional breeding scheme calls for at least nine consecutive backcrosses before establishing a congenic mouse strain. Recent availability of genome sequence and high-throughput genotyping now permit the use of polymorphic DNA markers to reduce this number of backcrosses, and empirical data suggest that marker-assisted breeding may require as few as four backcrosses. We used simulation studies to investigate the efficiency of different marker-assisted breeding schemes by examining the trade-off between the number of backcrosses, the number of mice produced per generation, and the number of genotypes per mouse required to achieve a quality congenic mouse strain. An established model of crossover interference was also incorporated into these simulations. The quality of the strain produced was assessed by the probability of an undetected region of heterozygosity (i.e., "gaps") in the recipient genetic background, while maintaining the desired donor-derived interval. Somewhat surprisingly, we found that there is a relatively high probability for undetected gaps in potential breeders for establishing a congenic mouse strain. Marker-assisted breeding may decrease the number of backcross generations required to generate a congenic strain, but only additional backcrossing will guarantee a reduction in the number and length of undetected gaps harboring contaminating donor alleles.

Citing Articles

A new mouse SNP genotyping assay for speed congenics: combining flexibility, affordability, and power.

Andrews K, Hunter S, Torrevillas B, Cespedes N, Garrison S, Strickland J BMC Genomics. 2021; 22(1):378.

PMID: 34030629 PMC: 8142480. DOI: 10.1186/s12864-021-07698-9.


C(3)1-TAg in C57BL/6 J background as a model to study mammary tumor development.

Sena I, Rocha B, Picoli C, Santos G, Costa A, Goncalves B Histochem Cell Biol. 2021; 156(2):165-182.

PMID: 34003355 DOI: 10.1007/s00418-021-01995-w.


Influence of allelic differences in Down syndrome.

Roper R, Hawley L, Goodlett C Prog Brain Res. 2020; 251:29-54.

PMID: 32057311 PMC: 7500172. DOI: 10.1016/bs.pbr.2019.09.001.


Activity-dependent formation of a vesicular inhibitory amino acid transporter gradient in the superior olivary complex of NMRI mice.

Ebbers L, Weber M, Nothwang H BMC Neurosci. 2017; 18(1):75.

PMID: 29073893 PMC: 5659004. DOI: 10.1186/s12868-017-0393-9.


Genetic modifiers as relevant biological variables of eye disorders.

Meyer K, Anderson M Hum Mol Genet. 2017; 26(R1):R58-R67.

PMID: 28482014 PMC: 5886476. DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddx180.


References
1.
Markel P, Shu P, Ebeling C, Carlson G, Nagle D, Smutko J . Theoretical and empirical issues for marker-assisted breeding of congenic mouse strains. Nat Genet. 1997; 17(3):280-4. DOI: 10.1038/ng1197-280. View

2.
Rogner U, Avner P . Congenic mice: cutting tools for complex immune disorders. Nat Rev Immunol. 2003; 3(3):243-52. DOI: 10.1038/nri1031. View

3.
Crabbe J . Alcohol and genetics: new models. Am J Med Genet. 2002; 114(8):969-74. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.b.10984. View

4.
Bennett B . Congenic strains developed for alcohol- and drug-related phenotypes. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2001; 67(4):671-81. DOI: 10.1016/s0091-3057(00)00412-3. View

5.
Hospital F . Size of donor chromosome segments around introgressed loci and reduction of linkage drag in marker-assisted backcross programs. Genetics. 2001; 158(3):1363-79. PMC: 1461714. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/158.3.1363. View