Direct and maternal genetic effects on body weight maturing patterns in mice

Summary Direct and maternal genetic effects were evaluated for maturing patterns of body weight in mice using a crossfostering design. Crossfostering was performed in one group using dams from populations selected for rapid growth rate (M16 and H₆) and their reciprocal F₁. crosses. A second crossfostering group consisted of dams from the respective control populations (ICR and C₂) and their reciprocal F₁. 's. Population differences were partitioned into direct and maternal effects due to genetic origin, correlated selection responses, heterosis and cytoplasmic or sex-linked effects. Degree of maturity was calculated at birth, 12, 21, 31 and 42 days of age by dividing body weight at each age by 63-day weight. Absolute and relative maturing rates were calculated in adjacent age intervals between birth and 63 days. Genetic origin effects (ICR vs. C₂; M16 vs. H₆) were significant for many maturity traits, with average direct being more important than average maternal genetic effects. In general, correlated responses to selection for maturity traits were larger in the M16 population (M16 vs. ICR) than in the H₆ population (H₆ vs. C₂) and correlated responses in average direct effects were larger than average maternal effects. Positive correlated responses in average direct effects were found for relative maturing rates at all ages and for absolute maturing rates from 31 to 63 days. Apparent correlated responses in degree of maturity were negative for M16 and H₆. However, further analysis suggested that the correlated response for degree of maturity in H₆ may be positive at later ages and negative at earlier ages. Direct and maternal heterosis for degree of maturity was positive in the selected and control crosses. Absolute and relative maturing rates showed positive heterosis initially, followed by negative heterosis. Reciprocal differences due to the cytoplasm or sex-linkage were not important for patterns of maturity.Paper No. 5244 the Journal Series of the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Ealeigh, Animal Research Institute Contribution No. 683 and Agricultural University at Wageningen Contribution No. 654–490–12On leave from the Animal Research Institute, Agriculture Canada at Ottawa, OntarioOn leave from the Department of Animal Husbandry, Agricultural University at Wagenitgen, the Netherlands