Vadarevu V Ganesh^1,2, Vindhya Kumaran^1,2, Erica LC Alejado^1,2, Piyabut Kiatfuangfung^1,2, Zuo Xian Seah^1,2 and Maurice HT Ling^1-3*

¹School of Life Sciences, Management Development Institute of Singapore, Singapore
²School of Applied Sciences, Northumbria University, United Kingdom
³HOHY PTE LTD, Singapore

*Corresponding Author: Maurice HT Ling, School of Life Sciences, Management Development Institute of Singapore, Singapore.

Received: May 28, 2024; Published: July 11, 2024

Abstract

Captive population can suffer from inbreeding due to founder’s effect and supplementation from the wild has been considered to increase genetic diversity and reduce inbreeding. However, a recent simulation study suggests that one-off naïve supplementation from the wild cannot increase genetic diversity; thereby, suggesting more complicated supplementation regimes. Hence, we hypothesize that that repeated supplementations can better increase genetic diversity compared to single supplementation. Our simulations show that repeated 10% supplementations results in significantly higher genetic diversity (p-value ≤ 1.48E-03) compared to one-off 10% supplementation, and increasing the supplementation ratio of repeated supplementations results in higher genetic diversity (p-value ≤ 2.35E-04) compared to repeated 10% supplementations. However, increasing repeated supplementation ratios above 100% may not further increase genetic diversity. This implies that repeated supplementations have the potential to reduce but not eliminate inbreeding.

Keywords: Captive Population; Inbreeding; Supplementation; Simulation; Genetic Diversity

References

1. Keller L. “Inbreeding Effects in Wild Populations”. Trends in Ecology and Evolution5 (2002): 230-241.
2. Gorelik OV., et al. “The Use of Inbreeding in Dairy Cattle Breeding”. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science8 (2020): 082013.
3. Das BK. “Genetics of Quantitative Traits in Human: Inbreeding as an Approach of Study”. International Journal of Human Genetics3 (2011): 155-166.
4. Allaire FR and Henderson CR. “Inbreeding Within an Artificially Bred Dairy Cattle Population”. Journal of Dairy Science10 (1965): 1366-1371.
5. Gamblin J., et al. “Bottlenecks Can Constrain and Channel Evolutionary Paths”. Genetics 2 (2023): iyad001.
6. Weaver SC., et al. “Population Bottlenecks and Founder Effects: Implications for Mosquito-Borne Arboviral Emergence”. Nature Reviews Microbiology3 (2021): 184-195.
7. Charlesworth D and Willis JH. “The Genetics of Inbreeding Depression. Nature Reviews Genetics 10 (11): 783-796.
8. Hasselgren M., et al. “Genomic and Fitness Consequences of Inbreeding in an Endangered Carnivore”. Molecular Ecology 12 (2021): 2790-2799.
9. Toczydlowski RH and Waller DM. “Failure to Purge: Population and Individual Inbreeding Effects on Fitness Across Generations of Wild Impatiens capensis”. Evolution6 (2023): 1315-1329.
10. Trask AE., et al. “Multiple Life-Stage Inbreeding Depression Impacts Demography and Extinction Risk in an Extinct-in-the-Wild Species”. Scientific Reports1 (2021): 682.
11. Liu D., et al. “Low Genetic Diversity in Broodstocks of Endangered Chinese Sucker, Myxocyprinusasiaticus: Implications for Artificial Propagation and Conservation”. ZooKeys 792 (2018): 117-132.
12. Pacioni C., et al. “Is Supplementation an Efficient Management Action to Increase Genetic Diversity in Translocated Populations?” Ecological Management and Restoration2 (2020): 123-130.
13. Crnokrak P and Roff DA. “Inbreeding Depression in the Wild”. Heredity 3 (1999): 260-270.
14. Kamarudin NJ., et al. “A Simulation Study on the Effects of Founding Population Size and Number of Alleles Per Locus on the Observed Population Genetic Profile: Implications to Broodstock Management”. EC Veterinary Science8 (2020): 176-180.
15. Johny A., et al. “Simulation Suggests that One-Off Simple Supplementation from the Wild into Captive Population May Not Increase Captive Genetic Diversity”. EC Veterinary Science7 (2021): 107-111.
16. Saunders PA., et al. “Sex Chromosome Turnovers and Genetic Drift: A Simulation Study”. Journal of Evolutionary Biology9 (2018): 1413-1419.
17. Sekine D and Yabe S. “Simulation-Based Optimization of Genomic Selection Scheme for Accelerating Genetic Gain while Preventing Inbreeding Depression in Onion Breeding”. Breeding Science 5 (2020): 594-604.
18. Zhao F., et al. “Genetic Gain and Inbreeding from Simulation of Different Genomic Mating Schemes for Pig Improvement”. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology1 (2023): 87.
19. Castillo CFG and Ling MHT. “Resistant Traits in Digital Organisms Do Not Revert Preselection Status Despite Extended Deselection: Implications to Microbial Antibiotics Resistance”. BioMed Research International (2014): 648389.
20. Castillo CF., et al. “Resistance Maintained in Digital Organisms Despite Guanine/Cytosine-Based Fitness Cost and Extended De-Selection: Implications to Microbial Antibiotics Resistance”. MOJ Proteomics and Bioinformatics2 (2015): 00039.
21. Anderson CJR and Harmon L. “Ecological and Mutation-Order Speciation in Digital Organisms. The American Naturalist 183.2 (2014): 257-268.
22. Beckmann BE–Evolution of resistance to quorum quenching in digital organisms”. Artificial Life3 (2012): 291-310.
23. Ling MH. “Island: A Simple Forward Simulation Tool for Population Genetics”. Acta Scientific Computer Sciences2 (2019): 20-22.
24. Haber M. “Detection of Inbreeding Effects by the Chi-Square Test on Genotypic and Phenotypic Frequencies”. American Journal of Human Genetics5 (1980): 754-760.
25. Graffelman J and Weir BS. “On the Testing of Hardy-Weinberg Proportions and Equality of Allele Frequencies in Males and Females at Biallelic Genetic Markers”. Genetic Epidemiology1 (2018): 34-48.
26. Wang J and Shete S. “Testing Departure from Hardy-Weinberg Proportions”. Methods in Molecular Biology 850 (2012): 77-102.
27. Ferchaud A–Impact of Supplementation on Deleterious Mutation Distribution in an Exploited Salmonid”. Evolutionary Applications7 (2018): 1053-1065.
28. Wang J and Ryman N. “Genetic Effects of Multiple Generations of Supportive Breeding”. Conservation Biology6 (2001): 1619-1631.
29. Byrne PG and Silla AJ. “An Experimental Test of the Genetic Consequences of Population Augmentation in an Amphibian”. Conservation Science and Practice6 (2020): e194.

Citation

Citation: Maurice HT Ling. “Simulation Suggests that Repeated Supplementations from the Wild into Captive Population Reduce but Cannot Eliminate Inbreeding". Acta Scientific Agriculture 8.8 (2024): 31-35.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Maurice HT Ling. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.