» Articles » PMID: 31941436

Genomic Dissection of Maternal, Additive and Non-additive Genetic Effects for Growth and Carcass Traits in Nile Tilapia

Overview
Journal Genet Sel Evol
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialties Biology
Genetics
Date 2020 Jan 17
PMID 31941436
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The availability of both pedigree and genomic sources of information for animal breeding and genetics has created new challenges in understanding how they can be best used and interpreted. This study estimated genetic variance components based on genomic information and compared these to the variance components estimated from pedigree alone in a population generated to estimate non-additive genetic variance. Furthermore, the study examined the impact of the assumptions of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) on estimates of genetic variance components. For the first time, the magnitude of inbreeding depression for important commercial traits in Nile tilapia was estimated by using genomic data.

Results: The study estimated the non-additive genetic variance in a Nile tilapia population of full-sib families and, when present, it was almost entirely represented by additive-by-additive epistatic variance, although in pedigree studies this non-additive variance is commonly assumed to arise from dominance. For body depth (BD) and body weight at harvest (BWH), the proportion of additive-by-additive epistatic to phenotypic variance was estimated to be 0.15 and 0.17 using genomic data (P < 0.05). In addition, with genomic data, the maternal variance (P < 0.05) for BD, BWH, body length (BL) and fillet weight (FW) explained approximately 10% of the phenotypic variances, which was comparable to pedigree-based estimates. The study also showed the detrimental effects of inbreeding on commercial traits of tilapia, which was estimated to reduce trait values by 1.1, 0.9, 0.4 and 0.3% per 1% increase in the individual homozygosity for FW, BWH, BD and BL, respectively. The presence of inbreeding depression but lack of dominance variance was consistent with an infinitesimal dominance model for the traits.

Conclusions: The benefit of including non-additive genetic effects for genetic evaluations in tilapia breeding schemes is not evident from these findings, but the observed inbreeding depression points to a role for reciprocal recurrent selection. Commercially, this conclusion will depend on the scheme's operational costs and resources. The creation of maternal lines in Tilapia breeding schemes may be a possibility if the variation associated with maternal effects is heritable.

Citing Articles

Genome-Assisted Gene-Flow Rescued Genetic Diversity Without Hindering Growth Performance in an Inbred Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Population Selected for High Growth Phenotype.

Kobayashi J, Honda R, Hosoya S, Nochiri Y, Matsuzaki K, Sugimoto K Mar Biotechnol (NY). 2025; 27(1):38.

PMID: 39890695 PMC: 11785656. DOI: 10.1007/s10126-025-10416-1.


Characterization of indigenous chicken phenotypes in Liban Jawi District, Ethiopia: A qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Begna D, Bacha T, Boki S, Bekana K PLoS One. 2025; 20(1):e0307793.

PMID: 39792875 PMC: 11723647. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0307793.


Genomic prediction accounting for dominance and epistatic genetic effects on litter size traits in Large White pigs.

Chen J, Dou T, Wu Z, Bai L, Xu M, Zhang Y J Anim Sci. 2025; 103.

PMID: 39774780 PMC: 11776020. DOI: 10.1093/jas/skaf004.


Analysis of nonsynonymous SNPs in candidate genes that influence bovine temperament and evaluation of their effect in Brahman cattle.

Ruiz-De-La-Cruz G, Sifuentes-Rincon A, Paredes-Sanchez F, Parra-Bracamonte G, Casas E, Riley D Mol Biol Rep. 2024; 51(1):285.

PMID: 38324050 PMC: 10850011. DOI: 10.1007/s11033-024-09264-4.


Additive and non-additive genetic variance in juvenile Sitka spruce ( Bong. Carr).

Ilska J, Tolhurst D, Tumas H, Maclean J, Cottrell J, Lee S Tree Genet Genomes. 2023; 19(6):53.

PMID: 37970220 PMC: 10632294. DOI: 10.1007/s11295-023-01627-5.


References
1.
KACSER H, Burns J . MOlecular democracy: who shares the controls?. Biochem Soc Trans. 1979; 7(5):1149-60. DOI: 10.1042/bst0071149. View

2.
Piaskowski J, Hardner C, Cai L, Zhao Y, Iezzoni A, Peace C . Genomic heritability estimates in sweet cherry reveal non-additive genetic variance is relevant for industry-prioritized traits. BMC Genet. 2018; 19(1):23. PMC: 5894190. DOI: 10.1186/s12863-018-0609-8. View

3.
Legarra A . Comparing estimates of genetic variance across different relationship models. Theor Popul Biol. 2015; 107:26-30. DOI: 10.1016/j.tpb.2015.08.005. View

4.
Yang J, Lee S, Goddard M, Visscher P . GCTA: a tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. Am J Hum Genet. 2010; 88(1):76-82. PMC: 3014363. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.11.011. View

5.
Carlborg O, Jacobsson L, Ahgren P, Siegel P, Andersson L . Epistasis and the release of genetic variation during long-term selection. Nat Genet. 2006; 38(4):418-20. DOI: 10.1038/ng1761. View