HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Xie, C. Articles by Xu, S. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Xie, C. Articles by Xu, S. Agricola Articles by Xie, C. Articles by Xu, S.

Strategies of Marker-Aided Recurrent Selection

Dep. of Botany and Plant Sci., Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0124

^* Corresponding author (cxie{at}evolution.ucr.edu.).

The choice of a marker-aided recurrent selection (MARS) strategy depends on a number of factors. An experimental comparison of these factors can be costly or infeasible, but a theoretical comparison can provide some guidelines. This study was conducted to evaluate the genetic aspects of expected responses to various MARS methods and to compare the efficiencies of MARS relative to traditional phenotypic recurrent selection (PRS) and to marker-aided mass selection (MS). The MARS methods examined here are MS, half-sib family (HSF), full-sib family (FSF), S₁ family (S₁F), testcross progeny (TC), combined FSF selection with within-family MS (CSFS), and combined HSF selection with within-family MS (CSI-IS). If large fr action of the additive genetic variance (p) in a character can be explained by marker loci, the efilciencies of MARS relative to corresponding PRS can be great. This is most pronounced when family size (n) is small and decreases as n increases. An exception to this is for CSHS, where MARS is superior to PRS across all family sizes. Similarly, CSFS performs better than FSF selection under a wider range of family sizes (1 < n < 50). With constant rate selected and a relatively large family size, S₁F, CSFS and CSHS selection are superior to MS, whereas HSF selection is inferior to MS. With constraints of the same effective size selected for each method, MS, which takes advantage of the greatest selection intensity, is the most efficient method. Nevertheless, MARS among small families or individual plants can produce substantial increases in selection responses.

Received for publication January 15, 1998.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Stendal, M. D. Casler, and G. Jung Marker-Assisted Selection for Neutral Detergent Fiber in Smooth Bromegrass Crop Sci., January 24, 2006; 46(1): 303 - 311. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J.-M. Ribaut, C. Jiang, and D. Hoisington Simulation Experiments on Efficiencies of Gene Introgression by Backcrossing Crop Sci., March 1, 2002; 42(2): 557 - 565. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]