A Simulation Model Including Ovulation Rate, Potential Embryonic Viability, and Uterine Capacity to Explain Litter Size in Mice

II. Responses to Alternative Criteria of Selection

E. L.D.A. Ribeiro, Merlyn K Nielsen, K. A. Leymaster, G. L. Bennett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Direct selection for litter size was compared with selection for ovulation rate, ova success, or uterine capacity and for indexes of ovulation rate with ova success or uterine capacity. Selection was simulated for 10 generations in a mouse population based on a model integrating ovulation rate, potential embryonic viability, and uterine capacity. Two indexes including ovulation rate (OR) and ova success (OS) were I = .291 × OR + 2.19 × OS and I = .165 × OR + .736 × OS. Heritabilities for ovulation rate and ova success, assumed in the simulation and to derive the indexes, were .25 and .06, respectively. Both indexes resulted in the same response in litter size, 12.9% greater than response to direct selection for litter size. Two indexes including OR and uterine capacity (TUC = true total uterine capacity; UC = uterine capacity measured as number born for a female with right ovary excised) were I = .881 × OR + .223 × TUC and I - .876 × OR + .568 × UC. Heritabilities assumed for uterine capacity were .09 (TUC) and .065 (UC). The first index assumed true parameters for uterine capacity (TUC) and resulted in a response in litter size that was 23.9% greater than direct selection. The second index was calculated using parameters estimated under a unilateral-ovariectomy model and resulted in response that was 14.7% greater than direct selection. Selection for OR, TUC, UC, or OS resulted in responses that were 4.5, 48.5, 38.7, or 74.8%, respectively, less than that from direct selection for litter size.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)652-656
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of animal science
Volume75
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1997

Fingerprint

Litter Size
Ovulation
selection criteria
litter size
Patient Selection
ovulation
simulation models
viability
ova
Ovum
mice
heritability
ovariectomy
Ovariectomy
Ovary

Keywords

  • Litter Size
  • Mice
  • Ovulation Rate
  • Selection
  • Simulation
  • Uterus

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Food Science
  • Animal Science and Zoology
  • Genetics

Cite this

A Simulation Model Including Ovulation Rate, Potential Embryonic Viability, and Uterine Capacity to Explain Litter Size in Mice : II. Responses to Alternative Criteria of Selection. / Ribeiro, E. L.D.A.; Nielsen, Merlyn K; Leymaster, K. A.; Bennett, G. L.

In: Journal of animal science, Vol. 75, No. 3, 01.01.1997, p. 652-656.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{06db5b5db3b04198849132e5a0d94098,
title = "A Simulation Model Including Ovulation Rate, Potential Embryonic Viability, and Uterine Capacity to Explain Litter Size in Mice: II. Responses to Alternative Criteria of Selection",
abstract = "Direct selection for litter size was compared with selection for ovulation rate, ova success, or uterine capacity and for indexes of ovulation rate with ova success or uterine capacity. Selection was simulated for 10 generations in a mouse population based on a model integrating ovulation rate, potential embryonic viability, and uterine capacity. Two indexes including ovulation rate (OR) and ova success (OS) were I = .291 × OR + 2.19 × OS and I = .165 × OR + .736 × OS. Heritabilities for ovulation rate and ova success, assumed in the simulation and to derive the indexes, were .25 and .06, respectively. Both indexes resulted in the same response in litter size, 12.9{\%} greater than response to direct selection for litter size. Two indexes including OR and uterine capacity (TUC = true total uterine capacity; UC = uterine capacity measured as number born for a female with right ovary excised) were I = .881 × OR + .223 × TUC and I - .876 × OR + .568 × UC. Heritabilities assumed for uterine capacity were .09 (TUC) and .065 (UC). The first index assumed true parameters for uterine capacity (TUC) and resulted in a response in litter size that was 23.9{\%} greater than direct selection. The second index was calculated using parameters estimated under a unilateral-ovariectomy model and resulted in response that was 14.7{\%} greater than direct selection. Selection for OR, TUC, UC, or OS resulted in responses that were 4.5, 48.5, 38.7, or 74.8{\%}, respectively, less than that from direct selection for litter size.",
keywords = "Litter Size, Mice, Ovulation Rate, Selection, Simulation, Uterus",
author = "Ribeiro, {E. L.D.A.} and Nielsen, {Merlyn K} and Leymaster, {K. A.} and Bennett, {G. L.}",
year = "1997",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2527/1997.753652x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "75",
pages = "652--656",
journal = "Journal of Animal Science",
issn = "0021-8812",
publisher = "American Society of Animal Science",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Simulation Model Including Ovulation Rate, Potential Embryonic Viability, and Uterine Capacity to Explain Litter Size in Mice

T2 - II. Responses to Alternative Criteria of Selection

AU - Ribeiro, E. L.D.A.

AU - Nielsen, Merlyn K

AU - Leymaster, K. A.

AU - Bennett, G. L.

PY - 1997/1/1

Y1 - 1997/1/1

N2 - Direct selection for litter size was compared with selection for ovulation rate, ova success, or uterine capacity and for indexes of ovulation rate with ova success or uterine capacity. Selection was simulated for 10 generations in a mouse population based on a model integrating ovulation rate, potential embryonic viability, and uterine capacity. Two indexes including ovulation rate (OR) and ova success (OS) were I = .291 × OR + 2.19 × OS and I = .165 × OR + .736 × OS. Heritabilities for ovulation rate and ova success, assumed in the simulation and to derive the indexes, were .25 and .06, respectively. Both indexes resulted in the same response in litter size, 12.9% greater than response to direct selection for litter size. Two indexes including OR and uterine capacity (TUC = true total uterine capacity; UC = uterine capacity measured as number born for a female with right ovary excised) were I = .881 × OR + .223 × TUC and I - .876 × OR + .568 × UC. Heritabilities assumed for uterine capacity were .09 (TUC) and .065 (UC). The first index assumed true parameters for uterine capacity (TUC) and resulted in a response in litter size that was 23.9% greater than direct selection. The second index was calculated using parameters estimated under a unilateral-ovariectomy model and resulted in response that was 14.7% greater than direct selection. Selection for OR, TUC, UC, or OS resulted in responses that were 4.5, 48.5, 38.7, or 74.8%, respectively, less than that from direct selection for litter size.

AB - Direct selection for litter size was compared with selection for ovulation rate, ova success, or uterine capacity and for indexes of ovulation rate with ova success or uterine capacity. Selection was simulated for 10 generations in a mouse population based on a model integrating ovulation rate, potential embryonic viability, and uterine capacity. Two indexes including ovulation rate (OR) and ova success (OS) were I = .291 × OR + 2.19 × OS and I = .165 × OR + .736 × OS. Heritabilities for ovulation rate and ova success, assumed in the simulation and to derive the indexes, were .25 and .06, respectively. Both indexes resulted in the same response in litter size, 12.9% greater than response to direct selection for litter size. Two indexes including OR and uterine capacity (TUC = true total uterine capacity; UC = uterine capacity measured as number born for a female with right ovary excised) were I = .881 × OR + .223 × TUC and I - .876 × OR + .568 × UC. Heritabilities assumed for uterine capacity were .09 (TUC) and .065 (UC). The first index assumed true parameters for uterine capacity (TUC) and resulted in a response in litter size that was 23.9% greater than direct selection. The second index was calculated using parameters estimated under a unilateral-ovariectomy model and resulted in response that was 14.7% greater than direct selection. Selection for OR, TUC, UC, or OS resulted in responses that were 4.5, 48.5, 38.7, or 74.8%, respectively, less than that from direct selection for litter size.

KW - Litter Size

KW - Mice

KW - Ovulation Rate

KW - Selection

KW - Simulation

KW - Uterus

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031092416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031092416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2527/1997.753652x

DO - 10.2527/1997.753652x

M3 - Article

VL - 75

SP - 652

EP - 656

JO - Journal of Animal Science

JF - Journal of Animal Science

SN - 0021-8812

IS - 3

ER -