Cargando…

Social genetic effects for growth in pigs differ between boars and gilts

BACKGROUND: Average daily gain (ADG) in pigs is affected by the so-called social (or indirect) genetic effects (SGE). However, SGE may differ between sexes because boars grow faster than gilts and their social behaviours differ. We hypothesized that direct genetic effects (DGE) and SGE for ADG in pi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nielsen, Hanne M., Ask, Birgitte, Madsen, Per
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5796567/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29390956
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-018-0375-0
_version_ 1783297524121993216
author Nielsen, Hanne M.
Ask, Birgitte
Madsen, Per
author_facet Nielsen, Hanne M.
Ask, Birgitte
Madsen, Per
author_sort Nielsen, Hanne M.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Average daily gain (ADG) in pigs is affected by the so-called social (or indirect) genetic effects (SGE). However, SGE may differ between sexes because boars grow faster than gilts and their social behaviours differ. We hypothesized that direct genetic effects (DGE) and SGE for ADG in pigs differ between boars and gilts and that accounting for these differences will improve the predictive ability of a social genetic effects model (SGM). Our data consisted of ADG from 30 to 94 kg for 32,212 uncastrated males (boars) and 48,252 gilts that were raised in sex-specific pens. Data were analyzed using a univariate model with sex as a fixed effect and a bivariate model with ADG in boars and gilts as separate traits using both a classical animal model (CM) and a SGM. RESULTS: With the univariate model, the heritability for ADG was 0.22 ± 0.01 for the CM, while the estimate of the total heritable variance (T(2)) was 0.23 ± 0.01 with the SGM. With the bivariate model, the genetic variance for SGE was higher for boars (13.8 ± 5.8) than for gilts (9.3 ± 3.9). For the bivariate model, T(2) was 0.32 ± 0.02 for boars and 0.27 ± 0.01 for gilts. Estimates of the genetic correlations between DGE (0.88 ± 0.02) and SGE (0.30 ± 0.30) for boars versus gilts indicated that ADG in boars and gilts are different traits. Moreover, the estimate of the genetic correlation between DGE and SGE indicated presence of genetic effects of competition among gilts but not among boars. Compared to a CM, the univariate SGM improved predictive ability significantly only for gilts and the bivariate SGM improved predictive ability significantly for both boars and gilts. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant genetic variances of SGE for ADG. The covariance between DGE and SGE was much more negative for gilts than for boars when applying the bivariate model. Because the estimate of the genetic correlation for ADG between gilts and boars differed significantly from 1 and the predictive ability for boars and gilts was improved significantly with the bivariate model, we recommend the use of a bivariate model to estimate both SGE and DGE for ADG in pigs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5796567
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57965672018-02-12 Social genetic effects for growth in pigs differ between boars and gilts Nielsen, Hanne M. Ask, Birgitte Madsen, Per Genet Sel Evol Research Article BACKGROUND: Average daily gain (ADG) in pigs is affected by the so-called social (or indirect) genetic effects (SGE). However, SGE may differ between sexes because boars grow faster than gilts and their social behaviours differ. We hypothesized that direct genetic effects (DGE) and SGE for ADG in pigs differ between boars and gilts and that accounting for these differences will improve the predictive ability of a social genetic effects model (SGM). Our data consisted of ADG from 30 to 94 kg for 32,212 uncastrated males (boars) and 48,252 gilts that were raised in sex-specific pens. Data were analyzed using a univariate model with sex as a fixed effect and a bivariate model with ADG in boars and gilts as separate traits using both a classical animal model (CM) and a SGM. RESULTS: With the univariate model, the heritability for ADG was 0.22 ± 0.01 for the CM, while the estimate of the total heritable variance (T(2)) was 0.23 ± 0.01 with the SGM. With the bivariate model, the genetic variance for SGE was higher for boars (13.8 ± 5.8) than for gilts (9.3 ± 3.9). For the bivariate model, T(2) was 0.32 ± 0.02 for boars and 0.27 ± 0.01 for gilts. Estimates of the genetic correlations between DGE (0.88 ± 0.02) and SGE (0.30 ± 0.30) for boars versus gilts indicated that ADG in boars and gilts are different traits. Moreover, the estimate of the genetic correlation between DGE and SGE indicated presence of genetic effects of competition among gilts but not among boars. Compared to a CM, the univariate SGM improved predictive ability significantly only for gilts and the bivariate SGM improved predictive ability significantly for both boars and gilts. CONCLUSIONS: We found significant genetic variances of SGE for ADG. The covariance between DGE and SGE was much more negative for gilts than for boars when applying the bivariate model. Because the estimate of the genetic correlation for ADG between gilts and boars differed significantly from 1 and the predictive ability for boars and gilts was improved significantly with the bivariate model, we recommend the use of a bivariate model to estimate both SGE and DGE for ADG in pigs. BioMed Central 2018-02-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5796567/ /pubmed/29390956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-018-0375-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Nielsen, Hanne M.
Ask, Birgitte
Madsen, Per
Social genetic effects for growth in pigs differ between boars and gilts
title Social genetic effects for growth in pigs differ between boars and gilts
title_full Social genetic effects for growth in pigs differ between boars and gilts
title_fullStr Social genetic effects for growth in pigs differ between boars and gilts
title_full_unstemmed Social genetic effects for growth in pigs differ between boars and gilts
title_short Social genetic effects for growth in pigs differ between boars and gilts
title_sort social genetic effects for growth in pigs differ between boars and gilts
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5796567/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29390956
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12711-018-0375-0
work_keys_str_mv AT nielsenhannem socialgeneticeffectsforgrowthinpigsdifferbetweenboarsandgilts
AT askbirgitte socialgeneticeffectsforgrowthinpigsdifferbetweenboarsandgilts
AT madsenper socialgeneticeffectsforgrowthinpigsdifferbetweenboarsandgilts