Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Animal Production Science Animal Production Science Society
Food, fibre and pharmaceuticals from animals
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > AN > EA05042
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Contents Vol 45(8)

Rates of inbreeding using DNA fingerprinting in aquaculture breeding programs at various broodstock fitness levels — a simulation study

M. Macbeth
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Animal Research Institute, Brisbane, Qld 4105, Australia. Email: Michael.Macbeth@dpi.qld.gov.au

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45(8) 893-900 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA05042
Submitted: 14 February 2005  Accepted: 14 April 2005   Published: 26 August 2005

Abstract

A simulation study was used to examine the potential use of DNA fingerprinting (DNA tagging) as a tool to avoid excessive inbreeding by identifying suitable candidate breeders in genetic selection programs. ‘Broodstock fitness’ (the ability of broodstock to survive from harvest and reproduce) needs to be considered in designing breeding programs using DNA tagging. In this study, reduced broodstock fitness increased inbreeding exponentially. The level of inbreeding was also dependent on the intraclass correlation (t), selection intensity, number of individuals DNA tagged (NDNA), number of families maintained (Nf) and the number of candidate breeders retained per sex/family at harvest (C). With a broodstock fitness of 0.90, DNA tagging could theoretically achieve a selection intensity, in terms of the total phenotypic variance, of 2.90 standard deviations with 800 000 graded at harvest, while maintaining an inbreeding rate of 1.0% per generation (NDNA = 800, Nf = 30, C = 4, t = 0.3). In practice, the numbers required could be achieved by growing families in individual facilities (e.g. sea cages for barramundi or ponds for prawns). When mechanical grading is not possible, the selection pool may be limited to a level where physical tagging is feasible. In this case, there was no advantage in selection response using DNA tagging compared with physical tags. DNA tagging as a selection tool may be more feasible when broodstock fitness is above 0.6, and may fill a niche where industry infrastructure is not large enough to support separate rearing of families or where physical tagging is not economically viable or suitable. DNA tagging may also be useful as a means of recovering families in backup facilities where families have been pooled to reduce infrastructure costs. Due to the random nature of DNA sampling, not all families may be recovered and a reduction in selection pressure may facilitate family recovery.

Additional keywords: selection, tagging.


Acknowledgments

This work was inspired through work at the Bribie Island Aquaculture Research Centre. I thank Roger Lewer for useful discussions and the paper referees for useful comments on the manuscript.


References


Arce SM, Argue BJ, Thompson DA, Moss SM (2003) Evaluation of a fluorescent alphanumeric tagging system for penaeid shrimp and its application in selective breeding programs. Aquaculture (Amsterdam, Netherlands) 228, 267–278.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Arcos FG, Racotta IS, Ibarra AM (2004) Genetic parameter estimates for reproductive traits and egg composition in Pacific white shrimp Penaeus (Litopenaeus) vannamei. Aquaculture 236, 151–165.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Bentsen HB, Gjerde B (1994) Design of fish breeding programs. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production 19, 353–359. open url image1

Bentsen HB, Olesen I (2002) Designing aquaculture mass selection programs to avoid inbreeding rates. Aquaculture 204, 349–359.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Davis TLO (1984) Estimation of fecundity in Barramundi, Lates calcarifer (Bloch), using an automated particle counter. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35, 111–118. open url image1

Doyle RW, Herbinger C (1994) The use of DNA fingerprinting for high-intensity within family selection in fish breeding. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production 19, 364–371. open url image1

Eknath AE, Doyle RW (1990) Effective population size and rate of inbreeding in aquaculture of Indian carps. Aquaculture 85, 293–305.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Falconer DS (1972) ‘Introduction to quantitative genetics.’ (Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh)

Goddard ME (1992) Optimal effective population size for the global population of black and white dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 2902–2911.
| PubMed |
open url image1

Gjerde B, Gunnes K, Gjedrem T (1983) The effect of inbreeding on survival and growth in rainbow trout. Aquaculture 34, 327–332.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Hill WG (1979) A note on effective population size with overlapping generations. Genetics 92, 317–322. open url image1

Jerry DR, Preston NP, Crocos PJ, Keys S, Meadows JRS, Yutao L (2004) Parentage determination of Kuruma shrimp Penaeus (Marsupenaeus) japonicus using microsatellite markers (Bate). Aquaculture 235, 237–247.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Keys SJ, Crocos PJ, Burridge CY, Coman GJ, Davis GP, Preston NP (2004) Comparative growth and survival of inbred and outbred Penaeus (marsupenaeus) japonicus, reared under controlled environment conditions: indications of inbreeding depression. Aquaculture 241, 151–168.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Kincaid HL (1976) Effects of inbreeding on rainbow trout populations. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 105, 273–280.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Li Y, Byrne K, Miggiano E, Whan V, Moore S, Keys S, Crocos P, Preston N, Lehnert S (2003) Genetic mapping of the kuruma prawn Penaeus japonicus using AFLP markers. Aquaculture 219, 143–156.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Macbeth M, Obrien L, Palmer P, Lewer R, Garrett R, Wingfield M, Knibb W (2002) Selective breeding in barramundi. Department of Primary Industries, Queensland Government Information Series QI 02067, Brisbane.

Menasveta P, Sangpradub S, Piyatiratitivorakul S (1994) Effects of broodstock size and source on ovarian maturation and spawning of Penaeus monodon Fabricus from the Gulf of Thailand. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 25, 41–49. open url image1

Meuwissen THE, Woolliams JA (1994) Effective sizes of livestock populations to prevent a decline in fitness. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 89, 1019–1026.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Nicholas FW (1989) Incorporation of new reproductive technology in genetic improvement programs. In ‘Evolution and animal breeding’. (Eds WG Hill, FC MacKay) pp. 203–209. (CAB International: Wallingford)

Pante JR, Gjerde B, McMillan I (2001) Effect of inbreeding on body weight at hervest in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Aquaculture 192, 201–211.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Rodgers LJ, Bloomfield JP (1993) Comparison of growth, condition and mortality between stocks of barramundi Lates calcarifer: Cairns and Burrum River strains. (Eds CG Barlow, MA Rimmer) Fishing Industry Research and Development Council Project 89/67 Final Report, Canberra.

Sonesson AK, Gjerde B, Meuwissen THE (2005) Truncation selection for BLUP-EBV and phenotypic values in fish breeding schemes. Aquaculture 243, 61–68.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1

Tave D (1995) Selective breeding programs for medium-sized fish farms. Fisheries Technical Report No. 352, FAO, Rome.

Tave D (1999) Inbreeding and broodstock management. Fisheries Technical Report No. 392, FAO, Rome.

Wei M, Caballero A, Hill WG (1996) Selection response in finite populations. Genetics 144, 1961–1974.
| PubMed |
open url image1

Wilson K, Li Y, Whan V, Lehnert S, Byrne K , et al. (2002) Genetic mapping of the black tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon with amplified fragment length polymorphism. Aquaculture 204, 297–309.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | open url image1