Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:56:13.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic diversity of Guernsey population using pedigree data and gene-dropping simulations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2012

M. G. Melka ,
M. Sargolzaei ,
F. Miglior  and
F. Schenkel
M. G. Melka*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
M. Sargolzaei
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada L'Alliance Boviteq, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec J2 T 5H1, Canada
F. Miglior
Affiliation:
Guelph Food Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Guelph, ON N1G 5C9, Canada Canadian Dairy Network, Guelph, ON N1 K 1E5, Canada
F. Schenkel
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Poultry Science, Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, University of Guelph, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to analyze the trend of within-breed genetic diversity and identify major causes leading to loss of genetic diversity in Guernsey breed in three countries. Pedigree files of Canadian (GCN), South African (GSA) and American (GUS) Guernsey populations containing 130 927, 18 593 and 1 851 624 records, respectively, were analyzed. Several parameters derived from the in-depth pedigree analyses were used to measure trends and current levels of genetic diversity. Pedigree completeness index of GCN, GSA and GUS populations, in the most recent year (2007), was 97%, 74% and 79%, respectively, considering four generations back in the analysis. The rate of inbreeding in each population was 0.19%, 0.16% and 0.17% between 2002 and 2007, respectively. For the same period, the estimated effective population size for GCN, GSA and GUS was 46, 57 and 46, respectively. The estimated percentage of genetic diversity lost within each population over the last four decades was 8%, 3% and 5%, respectively. The relative proportion of genetic diversity lost due to random genetic drift in the three populations was 93%, 91% and 86%, respectively. In conclusion, the results suggested that GCN and GUS have lost more genetic diversity than GSA over the past four decades, and this loss is gaining momentum due to increasing rates of inbreeding. Therefore, strategies such as optimum contribution selection and migration of genetic material are advised to increase effective population size, particularly in GCN and GUS.

Keywords

genetic diversityGuernseygene-dropping
Type
Breeding and genetics
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , February 2013 , pp. 192 - 201
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bennewitz, J, Meuwissen, THE 2005. Estimation of extinction probabilities of five German cattle breeds by population viability analysis. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 2949–2961.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, P 2003. EVA version 1.4. Evolutionary algorithm for mate selection. User's guide. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Foulum, Denmark.Google Scholar
Bijma, P, Woolliams, JA 1999. Prediction of genetic contributions and generation intervals in populations with overlapping generations under selection. Genetics 151, 1197–1210.Google Scholar
Boichard, D 2002. PEDIG, a fortran package for pedigree analysis suited for large populations: Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, CD-Rom, communication no. 28–13, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
Boichard, D, Maignel, L, Verrier, E 1997. The value of using probabilities of gene origin to measure genetic variability in a population. Genetics Selection Evolution 29, 5–23.Google Scholar
Caballero, A, Toro, MA 2000. Interrelations between effective population size and other pedigree tools for the management of conserved populations. The International Journal for Genetics and Genomics Research 75, 331–343.Google ScholarPubMed
Colleau, JJ 2002. An indirect approach to the extensive calculation of relationship coefficients. Genetics Selection Evolution 34, 409–421.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS, Mackay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, UK.Google Scholar
Fernández, J, Toro, MA, Caballero, A 2001. Practical implementation of optimal management strategies in conservation programmes: a mate selection method. Animal Biodiversity and Conservation 24, 2–17.Google Scholar
Fernández, J, Toro, MA, Caballero, A 2003. Fixed contributions designs vs. minimization of global coancestry to control inbreeding in small populations. Genetics 165, 885–894.Google Scholar
Frankham, R, Ballou, JD, Briscoe, DA 2002. Introduction to conservation genetics. University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
González-Recio, O, López, D, Maturana, E, Gutiérrez, JP 2007. Inbreeding depression on female fertility and calving ease in Spanish dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5744–5752.Google Scholar
Gutierrez, JP, Altarriba, J, Diaz, C, Quintanilla, R, Canon, J, Piedrafita, J 2003. Pedigree analysis of eight Spanish beef cattle breeds. Genetics Selection Evolution 35, 43–63.Google Scholar
Haile-Mariam, M, Bowman, PJ, Goddard, ME 2007. A practical approach for minimizing inbreeding and maximizing genetic diversity in dairy cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 39, 269–289.Google Scholar
Hammami, H, Croquet, C, Stoll, J, Rekik, B, Gengler, D 2007. Genetic diversity and joint-pedigree analysis of two importing Holstein populations. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 3530–3541.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, D, Wetten, M, Meuwissen, THE 2006. An algorithm to compute optimal genetic contributions in selection programs with large numbers of candidates. Journal of Animal Science 84, 3212–3218.Google Scholar
Honda, T, Nomura, T, Yamaguchi, Y, Mukai, F 2004. Monitoring of genetic diversity in the Japanese Black cattle population by the use of pedigree information. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 121, 242–252.Google Scholar
Jean-Jacques, C, Moureaux, A, Briend, M, Bechu, J 2004. A method for the dynamic management of genetic variability in dairy cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 36, 373–394.Google Scholar
Kearney, JF, Wall, E, Villanueva, B, Coffey, MP 2004. Inbreeding trends and application of optimized selection in the UK Holstein population. Journal of Dairy Science 87, 3503–3509.Google Scholar
Lacy, RC 1989. Analysis of founder representation in pedigrees, founder equivalents and founder genome equivalents. Zoo Biology 8, 111–123.Google Scholar
Lacy, RC 1995. Clarification of genetic terms and their use in the management of captive populations. Zoo Biology 14, 565–578.Google Scholar
Lutaaya, E, Misztal, I, Bertrand, JK, Mabry, JW 1999. Inbreeding in populations with incomplete pedigrees. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 116, 475–480.Google Scholar
MacCluer, JW, Vandeberg, JL, Read, B, Ryder, OA 1986. Pedigree analysis by computer simulation. Zoo Biology 5, 47–60.Google Scholar
MacCluer, JW, Boyce, AJ, Dyke, B, Weitkamp, LR, Pfennig, DW, Parsons, CJ 1983. Inbreeding and pedigree structure in Standardbred horses. Journal of Heredity 74, 394–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiwashe, A, Nephawe, KA, van der Westhuizen, RR, Mostert, BE, Theron, HE 2006. Rate of inbreeding and effective population size in four major South African cattle breeds. South African Journal of Animal Science 36, 50–57.Google Scholar
Miglior, F, Szkotnicki, W, Burnside, EB 1992. Analysis of levels of inbreeding and inbreeding depression in Jersey Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 1112–1118.Google Scholar
Notter, DR 1999. The Importance of genetic diversity in livestock populations of the future. Journal of Animal Science 77, 61–69.Google Scholar
Reist-Marti, SB, Simianer, H, Gibson, J, Hanotte, O, Rege, JEO 2003. Weitzman's approach and conservation of breed diversity: an application to African cattle breeds. Conservation Biology 17, 1299–1311.Google Scholar
Rochambeau, H, Fournet-Hanocq, F, Tien, J, Khang, N 2000. Measuring and managing genetic variability in small populations. Animal Research 49, 77–93.Google Scholar
Ruane, J 2000. A framework for prioritizing domestic animal breeds for conservation purposes at the national level: a Norwegian case study. Conservation Biology 14, 1385–1393.Google Scholar
Sørensen, AC, Sørensen, MK, Berg, P 2005. Inbreeding in Danish dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 88, 1865–1872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sargolzaei, M, Iwaisaki, H, Colleau, JJ 2005. A fast algorithm for computing inbreeding coefficients in large populations. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 122, 325–331.Google Scholar
Sargolzaei, M, Iwaisaki, H, Colleau, JJ 2006. CFC, a tool for monitoring genetic diversity. Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, CD-ROM Communication no. 27–28, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.Google Scholar
Sewalem, A, Kistemaker, GJ, Miglior, F, VanDoormaal, BJ 2006. Analysis of inbreeding and its relationship with functional longevity in Canadian Dairy Cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2210–2216.Google Scholar
Simianer, H 2005. Using expected allele number as objective function to design between and within breed conservation of farm animal biodiversity. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 122, 177–187.Google Scholar
Sonesson, AK, Meuwissen, THE 2001. Minimization of rate of inbreeding for small populations with overlapping generations. The International Journal for Genetics and Genomics Research 77, 285–292.Google Scholar
Stachowicz, K, Sargolzaei, M, Miglior, F, Schenkel, FS 2011. Rates of inbreeding and genetic diversity in Canadian Holstein and Jersey cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 5160–5175.Google Scholar
VanRaden, PM 1992. Accounting for inbreeding and crossbreeding in genetic evaluation of large population. Journal of Dairy Science 75, 3136–3144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weigel, KA 2001. Controlling inbreeding in modern breeding programs. Journal of Dairy Science 84 (E. suppl.), E177–E184.Google Scholar
Wiggans, GR, VanRaden, PM 1995. Calculation and use of inbreeding coefficients for genetic evaluation of United States dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 78, 1584–1590.Google Scholar
Woolliams, JA, Thompson, R 1994. A theory of genetic contributions. Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, vol. 19, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, pp. 127–134.Google Scholar