| Literature DB >> 23768026 |
Luis T Gama1, Amparo M Martínez, Inês Carolino, Vincenzo Landi, Juan V Delgado, Antonio A Vicente, José L Vega-Pla, Oscar Cortés, Conceição O Sousa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Native pig breeds in the Iberian Peninsula are broadly classified as belonging to either the Celtic or the Mediterranean breed groups, but there are other local populations that do not fit into any of these groups. Most of the native pig breeds in Iberia are in danger of extinction, and the assessment of their genetic diversity and population structure, relationships and possible admixture between breeds, and the appraisal of conservation alternatives are crucial to adopt appropriate management strategies.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23768026 PMCID: PMC3698160 DOI: 10.1186/1297-9686-45-18
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genet Sel Evol ISSN: 0999-193X Impact factor: 4.297
Breeds, breed acronyms and breed means and standard deviations for different indicators of genetic diversity
| Celta | CEL | 4.54 | 3.04 | 4.00 | 0.596 | 0.496 | 0.171 | 0 |
| (1.79) | (1.43) | (1.58) | (0.047) | (0.021) | (0.078/0.214)** | |||
| Chato Murciano | CHM | 4.58 | 2.11 | 3.18 | 0.464 | 0.395 | 0.149 | 2 |
| (2.04) | 0.71) | (1.12) | (0.044) | (0.014) | (0.089/0.190)** | |||
| Entrepelado | ENT | 6.21 | 2.85 | 3.84 | 0.564 | 0.543 | 0.036 | 1 |
| (2.48) | (1.15) | (1.28) | (0.051) | (0.012) | (−0.007/0.066) | |||
| Euskal Txerria | ETX | 4.04 | 1.95 | 2.79 | 0.393 | 0.389 | 0.010 | 2 |
| (1.99) | (0.84) | (1.21) | (0.052) | (0.013) | (−0.046/0.059) | |||
| Lampiño | LAM | 6.08 | 2.92 | 4.07 | 0.573 | 0.533 | 0.070 | 3 |
| (2.99) | (1.46) | (1.65) | (0.048) | (0.013) | (0.007/0.108)* | |||
| Manchado de Jabugo | MAJ | 3.38 | 1.96 | 2.75 | 0.388 | 0.397 | −0.021 | 1 |
| (1.64) | (0.94) | (1.23) | (0.051) | (0.016) | (−0.085/0.016) | |||
| Negro Canario | NCA | 5.83 | 2.64 | 3.87 | 0.550 | 0.487 | 0.116 | 3 |
| (1.86) | (1.01) | (1.14) | (0.046) | (0.014) | (0.053/0.160)** | |||
| Negro de Formentera | NFO | 3.88 | 1.91 | 3.08 | 0.421 | 0.351 | 0.170 | 1 |
| (1.62) | (0.67) | (1.11) | (0.044) | (0.022) | ( 0.028/0.241)* | |||
| Negro de los Pedroches | NPE | 4.21 | 2.58 | 3.61 | 0.561 | 0.554 | 0.012 | 1 |
| (1.41) | (1.02) | (1.16) | (0.040) | (0.020) | (−0.102/0.082) | |||
| Negro Mallorquín | NMA | 4.63 | 2.51 | 3.81 | 0.560 | 0.514 | 0.084 | 0 |
| (1.47) | (1.01) | (1.11) | (0.034) | (0.023) | (−0.023/0.123) | |||
| Retinto | RET | 6.38 | 2.64 | 3.83 | 0.545 | 0.508 | 0.068 | 3 |
| (2.81) | (1.05) | (1.28) | (0.047) | (0.011) | (0.028/0.097)** | |||
| Torbiscal | TOR | 5.00 | 2.60 | 3.50 | 0.527 | 0.465 | 0.118 | 4 |
| (2.50) | (1.17) | (1.41) | (0.051) | (0.013) | (0.067/0.152)** | |||
| Spanish Wild Boar | SWB | 6.50 | 3.65 | 4.67 | 0.592 | 0.561 | 0.103 | 1 |
| (2.27) | (2.36) | (2.14) | (0.046) | (0.017) | (0.066/0.129)** | |||
| Alentejano | ALE | 5.88 | 3.02 | 4.07 | 0.567 | 0.532 | 0.063 | 3 |
| (2.49) | (1.33) | (1.57) | (0.055) | (0.013) | (0.013/0.096)* | |||
| Bisaro | BIS | 5.58 | 3.34 | 4.33 | 0.632 | 0.549 | 0.132 | 1 |
| (2.26) | (1.56) | (1.44) | (0.040) | (0.015) | (0.071/0.165)** | |||
| Malhado de Alcobaça | MAL | 3.67 | 2.23 | 3.05 | 0.522 | 0.514 | 0.015 | 1 |
| (1.09) | (0.63) | (0.72) | (0.031) | (0.017) | (−0.049/0.050) | |||
| Portuguese Wild Boar | PWB | 7.04 | 3.00 | 4.44 | 0.616 | 0.553 | 0.055 | 1 |
| (3.80) | (1.44) | (1.55) | (0.050) | (0.012) | (−0.010/0.087) | |||
| | ||||||||
aStatistical significance of FIS estimate represented as: *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01; MNA number of alleles/locus; NE effective number of alleles/locus, R allelic richness per locus corrected for breed sample size, H expected heterozygosity, H observed heterozygosity, F within-population deficit in heterozygosity and confidence interval, DHWE number of loci showing deviations from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium.
Figure 1Graphic representation of the matrix depicting pairwise Fdistances among the 17 pig populations studied. Colours representing breed distances are defined on the scale at the right side of the figure; breed abbreviations are as defined in Table 1.
Figure 2Neighbour-net dendrogram constructed from Dgenetic distances among 15 native pig breeds and two wild populations from Spain and Portugal. Breed abbreviations are as defined in Table 1.
Figure 3Spatial representation of genetic distances among the breeds analysed, from the first two axes obtained in the factorial analyses of correspondence. Values between brackets on both axes represent the contribution in % of each axis to total inertia; breed abbreviations are as defined in Table 1.
Partitioning of genetic variability among different sources of variation by AMOVA, considering the effects of species, country or group
| | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sum of squares / degrees of freedom | | | |
| Among factors | 193.1 / 1 | 104.5 / 1 | 809.7 / 2 |
| Among breeds within factors | 2331.4 / 15 | 2160.8 / 13 | 949.0 / 9 |
| Within breeds | 10380.5 / 1671 | 8810.6 / 1447 | 7690.1 / 1262 |
| Variance components | | | |
| Among factors | −0.022 | −0.181 | 0.988 |
| Among breeds within factors | 1.607 | 1.742 | 0.983 |
| Within breeds | 6.451 | 6.319 | 6.320 |
| Percentage variation | | | |
| Among factors | −0.28 | −2.30 | 11.92 |
| Among breeds within factors | 20.00 | 22.11 | 11.85 |
| Within breeds | 80.28 | 80.19 | 76.23 |
| F-statisticsd | | | |
| Among factors (FCT) | −0.003 | −0.023 | 0.119** |
| Among breeds within factor (FSC) | 0.199** | 0.216** | 0.134** |
| Among breeds relative to total variability (FST) | 0.197** | 0.198** | 0.119** |
awild vs. domestic pigs; bcountry of origin of domestic breeds: Portuguese vs. Spanish domestic breeds; cgroups of continental Iberian domestic breeds, as outlined in Table 1: Mediterranean, Celtic and Basque; dsignificance of F-statistics: ns (P > 0.1) and ** (P < 0.001).
Figure 4Radial tree representing neighbour-joining distances among individuals based on allele-sharing (D). Breed abbreviations are as defined in Table 1.
Figure 5Population structure of 15 domestic and two wild pig populations inferred by using the STRUCTURE software. Each animal is represented by a single vertical line divided into K colours, where K is the number of assumed ancestral clusters that ranged from 2 to 16; the colored segment shows the individual’s estimated membership proportions in a given cluster; breed abbreviations are as defined in Table 1.
Figure 6Synthetic contour maps of the Iberian Peninsula obtained from interpolation of the genetic contributions to each domestic breed estimated in the analysis with STRUCTURE. The contributions of each of the first three ancestral populations are represented by pink colors, and each sampled breed is represented by a black dot; (a) Mediterranean influence; (b) Celtic influence; (c) Basque influence.
Breed contributions to Weitzman diversity (PC) and global expected heterozygosity (PC) and to the core set methodology using the kinship matrix in a weighted log-linear mixed model (WLMM)
| CEL | 4.7 | 0.42 | 8.8 |
| CHM | 9.4 | −1.76 | 7.9 |
| ENT | 0.9 | 0.32 | 6.0 |
| ETX | −1.56 | ||
| LAM | 3.0 | 0.32 | 6.7 |
| MAJ | −1.8 | 0.0 | |
| NCA | 0.85 | ||
| NFO | −2 | 4.2 | |
| NMA | 6.4 | 0.66 | 5.3 |
| NPE | 4.9 | 6.1 | |
| RET | 1.4 | −0.02 | 4.8 |
| TOR | 7.5 | −0.12 | 6.8 |
| ALE | 2.7 | 0.28 | 5.8 |
| BIS | 3.7 | ||
| MAL | 8.6 | 6.6 |
Highly prioritised breeds for each case are represented in italic characters.