Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main content
                                  NCBI home page
Search in PMCSearch
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more:PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Genetics logo

Two-Way Selection for Growth Rate in the Common Carp (CYPRINUS CARPIO L.)

R Moav1,2,G Wohlfarth1,2
1Department of Genetics, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
2Agricultural Research Organization, Fish and Aquaculture Station, Dor, Israel

Received 1975 May 28; Revision requested 1975 Aug 18.

PMCID: PMC1213447  PMID:1248737

Abstract

The domesticated European carp was subjected to a two-way selection for growth rate. Five generations of mass selection for faster growth rate did not yield any response, but subsequent selection between groups (families) resulted in considerable progress while maintaining a large genetic variance. Selection for slow growth rate yielded relatively strong response for the first three generations. Random-bred control lines suffered from strong inbreeding depression and when two lines were crossed, the F1 showed a high degree of heterosis. Selection was performed on pond-raised fish, but growth rate was also tested in cages. A strong pond-cage genetic interaction was found. A theoretical explanation was suggested involving overdominance for fast growth rate and amplification through competition of intra-group but not inter-group variation.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as aPDF (1.0 MB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Eisen E. J. Long-term selection response for 12-day litter weight in mice. Genetics. 1972 Sep;72(1):129–142. doi: 10.1093/genetics/72.1.129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Falconer D. S. Improvement of litter size in a strain of mice at a selection limit. Genet Res. 1971 Jun;17(3):215–235. doi: 10.1017/s0016672300012246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Festing M. F., Nordskog A. W. Response to selection for body weight and egg weight in chickens. Genetics. 1967 Feb;55(2):219–231. doi: 10.1093/genetics/55.2.219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Jones L. P., Frankham R., Barker J. S. The effects of population size and selection intesnity in selection for a quantitative character in Drosophila. II. Long-term response to selection. Genet Res. 1968 Dec;12(3):249–266. doi: 10.1017/s001667230001185x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Moav R., Wohlfarth G. W. Magnification through competition of genetic differences in yield capacity in carp. Heredity (Edinb) 1974 Oct;33(2):181–202. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1974.86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Verghese M. W. Interaction between natural selection for heterozygotes and directional selection. Genetics. 1974 Jan;76(1):163–168. doi: 10.1093/genetics/76.1.163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Wehrhahn C, Allard R W. The Detection and Measurement of the Effects of Individual Genes Involved in the Inheritance of a Quantitative Character in Wheat. Genetics. 1965 Jan;51(1):109–119. doi: 10.1093/genetics/51.1.109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Genetics are provided here courtesy ofOxford University Press

ACTIONS

RESOURCES


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp