1984
DOI: 10.1007/bf00317015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Direct and correlated responses to selection for weaning weight, post-weaning weight gain and six-week weight in mice

Abstract: Four lines of mice were formed from a common base population and selected for 37 generations for either increased 3-week weight (weaning weight), 6-week weight, 3-6 week gain, or maintained as a randomly bred control line. Realised heritability estimates for short-term (long-term) responses were 0.33±0.20 (0.07±0.10), 0.46±0.14 (0.26±0.09), 0.36±0.14 (0.24±0.11) for 3-week weight, 6-week weight and 3-6 week gain, respectively. Realised genetic correlations estimated from short-term (long-term) responses were 0… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Year Published

1986
1986
1992
1992

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Realized genetic correlations between 6-week weight and 3-week weight or 3-6 week gain were high and similar to those obtained in comparable experiments (E ISEN , 1978 ;BAKER et al, 1984). However, the value calculated between 3-week and 6-week weight seems to be an overestimate since the correlated response obtained in 3-week weight following selection for 6-week body weight is mostly caused by the maternal effect (E ISEN , 1972).…”
Section: B Direct Responsesupporting
confidence: 76%
“…Realized genetic correlations between 6-week weight and 3-week weight or 3-6 week gain were high and similar to those obtained in comparable experiments (E ISEN , 1978 ;BAKER et al, 1984). However, the value calculated between 3-week and 6-week weight seems to be an overestimate since the correlated response obtained in 3-week weight following selection for 6-week body weight is mostly caused by the maternal effect (E ISEN , 1972).…”
Section: B Direct Responsesupporting
confidence: 76%
“…There are many possible additional maternal effects, e.g. uterine environment, milk quality, etc., which might affect an offspring's neurophysiological development and ultimately its foraging performance (Willham, 1972;Hayes and Eisen, 1979;Atchley, 1984;Baker et al, 1984). In particular, optimal mothers have a greater daily energy intake (Ritchie, 1990), and might have more energy or nutrients to invest in their offspring.…”
Section: Genetic Component Of Foraging Behaviourmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, optimal and deviating foragers differ in their calculated energy intake primarily because they differ in the ability to select their optimal diet. Individuals, however, sometimes show considerable variation in assimilation and conversion efficiency of food (Hayes and Eisen 1979;Baker et al 1984;Garton 1984). Therefore, deviators could potentially compensate for their reduced energy intake through greater digestibility (assimilation efficiency) or conversion efficiency.…”
Section: Energy Intake and Fitnessmentioning
confidence: 99%