| Literature DB >> 26979536 |
Maurício A Mudadu1,2, Laercio R Porto-Neto3, Fabiana B Mokry4, Polyana C Tizioto4, Priscila S N Oliveira4, Rymer R Tullio5, Renata T Nassu5, Simone C M Niciura5, Patrícia Tholon5, Maurício M Alencar5, Roberto H Higa6, Antônio N Rosa7, Gélson L D Feijó7, André L J Ferraz8, Luiz O C Silva7, Sérgio R Medeiros7, Dante P Lanna9, Michele L Nascimento9, Amália S Chaves9, Andrea R D L Souza10, Irineu U Packer9, Roberto A A Torres7, Fabiane Siqueira7, Gerson B Mourão9, Luiz L Coutinho9, Antonio Reverter3, Luciana C A Regitano5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nelore is the major beef cattle breed in Brazil with more than 130 million heads. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are often used to associate markers and genomic regions to growth and meat quality traits that can be used to assist selection programs. An alternative methodology to traditional GWAS that involves the construction of gene network interactions, derived from results of several GWAS is the AWM (Association Weight Matrices)/PCIT (Partial Correlation and Information Theory). With the aim of evaluating the genetic architecture of Brazilian Nelore cattle, we used high-density SNP genotyping data (~770,000 SNP) from 780 Nelore animals comprising 34 half-sibling families derived from highly disseminated and unrelated sires from across Brazil. The AWM/PCIT methodology was employed to evaluate the genes that participate in a series of eight phenotypes related to growth and meat quality obtained from this Nelore sample.Entities:
Keywords: AWM; GWAS; Genotyping; PCIT
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26979536 PMCID: PMC4791965 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-016-2535-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Genetic background of the sires
| Sire ID | Number of Sibs | mtDNA | Lineage | Lineage descendants (Sire + Sibs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NE001388 | 36 | Taurus | Akasamu | 37 |
| NE001398 | 43 | Indicus | Godar Imp. | 44 |
| NE001390 | 20 | Taurus | Godhavari | 21 |
| NE001358 | 31 | Taurus | Golias | 32 |
| NE001389 | 36 | Taurus | IRCA | 37 |
| NE001361 | 35 | Indicus | IZ | 96 |
| NE001386 | 14 | Taurus | IZ | |
| NE001392 | 13 | Taurus | IZ | |
| NE001395 | 25 | Indicus | IZ | |
| NE004368 | 4 | – | IZ | |
| NE001357 | 17 | Taurus | Karvadi | 129 |
| NE001360 | 19 | Taurus | Karvadi | |
| NE001383 | 40 | Taurus | Karvadi | |
| NE001385 | 5 | Taurus | Karvadi | |
| NE001393 | 19 | Taurus | Karvadi | |
| NE001394 | 23 | Taurus | Karvadi | |
| NE001397 | 14 | Indicus | Kurupathy | 15 |
| NE001381 | 36 | Taurus | Lengruber | 76 |
| NE001384 | 12 | Taurus | Lengruber | |
| NE001710 | 14 | Taurus | Lengruber | |
| NE003322 | 10 | – | Lengruber | |
| NE001391 | 34 | Taurus | Mocho GR | 35 |
| NE001380 | 37 | Taurus | Nagpur Imp | 38 |
| NE001707 | 18 | Indicus | NO | 19 |
| NE003323 | 22 | – | OB | 23 |
| NE001359 | 26 | Taurus | Padhu | 27 |
| NE001379 | 19 | Taurus | Padhu-Akasamu | 20 |
| NE001362 | 36 | Indicus | Taj Mahal | 107 |
| NE001378 | 10 | Taurus | Taj Mahal | |
| NE001382 | 24 | Taurus | Taj Mahal | |
| NE001387 | 13 | Taurus | Taj Mahal | |
| NE001712 | 16 | Indicus | Taj Mahal | |
| NE004369 | 2 | – | Taj Mahal | |
| NE001711 | 23 | Taurus | Visual | 24 |
| TOTAL | 746 | 7 Indicus (23.33 %) | 17 | 780 |
| 23 Taurus (76.66 %) |
Fig. 1Genetic profiling using the Genomic Relationship Matrix. a PCA analysis of all 780 Nelore (families differentiated by colors, sires are labeled). Inset shows a PCA with other breeds from Hapmap. b Heatmap and hierarchical clustering of the 780 Nelore. Lateral palette colors represent the families (same color correspondence to (a); upper color palette differentiates sires (red) from sibs (blue); shades of grey from the heatmap represent relationship similarities (darker is less related). c Pedigree view of the families showing the sires (blue), sibs (green) and the lineage ancestral from father side (red)
Fig. 2Genomic inbreeding coefficients. Runs of homozygosity (FROH) estimations with a minimum length of 30 SNPs, and inbreeding coefficient derived from a genomic relationship matrix (FGRM) for sires and its progeny
Trait data and GWAS results information
| Trait |
| min | max | avg | SD | h2 |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCW | 671 | 182.5 | 346.8 | 250.26 | 27.88 | 0.262 | 1246 | 219 | 32 |
| (0.114) | (17.97) | (10.26) | (7.03) | ||||||
| DRE | 671 | 42.6 | 86.5 | 56.22 | 3.63 | 0.092 | 680 | 100 | 20 |
| (0.080) | (33.02) | (22.49) | (11.25) | ||||||
| REA | 669 | 39.24 | 84.43 | 60.45 | 7.26 | 0.557 | 826 | 157 | 31 |
| (0.130) | (27.16) | (14.32) | (7.26) | ||||||
| BFT | 669 | 0.07 | 20 | 6.16 | 2.25 | 0.154 | 1723 | 305 | 56 |
| (0.112) | (12.97) | (7.37) | (4.02) | ||||||
| LM | 671 | 33.5 | 49.43 | 40.09 | 3.18 | 0.037 | 957 | 218 | 64 |
| (0.050) | (23.43) | (10.31) | (3.51) | ||||||
| LF | 671 | 12.02 | 40.21 | 19.94 | 5.41 | 0.097 | 1388 | 340 | 96 |
| (0.663) | (16.12) | (6.61) | (2.34) | ||||||
| PH | 671 | 9.48 | 24.28 | 15.31 | 3.15 | 0.040 | 928 | 215 | 56 |
| (0.067) | (24.17) | (10.45) | (4.02) | ||||||
| CLO | 671 | 16.54 | 84.36 | 75.65 | 4.45 | 0.041 | 939 | 138 | 22 |
| (0.057) | (23.88) | (16.29) | (10.22) |
TCW, Kg Total Carcass Weight, DRE, % Dressing, REA, cm Rib Eye Area, BFT, mm Back Fat Thickness, LM Lightness of Meat, LF Lightness of Fat, PH pH, CLO, % Cooking Loss. n is the number of animals used, min. is the minimum value, max is the maximum value, avg is the average value, SD is the standard deviation, h2 is the heritability (standard error inside brackets), p ≤ 10−3 is the number of SNPs under this p-value, p ≤ 10−4 is the number of SNPs under this p-value, p ≤ 10−5 is the number of SNPs under this p-value. Inside parentheses is the FDR threshold (%) for each given significance [78]
Estimates of inbreeding depression for meat quality traits. Estimates expressed as change in adjusted phenotype per 1 % increase, using a inbreeding coefficient derived from a genomic relationship matrix (FGRM), and a inbreeding coefficient derived from runs of homozygosity (FROH)
| FGRM | FROH | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trait | Meana | SD | Estimate | SE | Estimate | SE |
| LM | −0.249 | 3.90 | 4.42 | 5.11 | 8.98 | 6.33 |
| LF | −0.446 | 7.19 | 10.39 | 9.41 | 9.02 | 11.68 |
| PH | −0.073 | 0.66 | 2.00** | 0.86 | 0.91 | 1.07 |
| CLO | −0.357 | 5.30 | 11.66* | 6.93 | −5.14 | 8.61 |
| DRE | −0.336 | 5.63 | 10.78 | 7.37 | 9.72 | 9.14 |
| REA | −0.541 | 8.71 | 16.88 | 11.39 | −1.37 | 14.15 |
| BFT | −0.053 | 2.08 | −3.82 | 2.71 | −7.79** | 3.36 |
| TCW | −1.467 | 30.36 | 6.42 | 39.76 | 26.34 | 49.30 |
*P < 0.1; **P < 0.05; aadjusted phenotype; SD standard deviation, SE standard error, LM Lightness of Meat, LF Lightness of Fat, PH pH, CLO Cooking Loss, DRE Dressing, REA Rib Eye Area, TCW Total Carcass Weight, BFT Back Fat Thickness
Fig. 3GWAS results for the eight traits. a-h panels show the manhattan plots for: a Total Carcass Weight (TCW); b Dressing % (DRE); c Rib Eye Area (REA); d Back Fat Thickness (BFT); e Lightness of Meat (LM); f Lightness of Fat (LF); g pH (PH); h Cooking Loss (CLO)
Fig. 4Gene network for growth and meat quality traits. Sub network for the more connected trio of transcription factors. Triangular shaped nodes show transcription factors. Greener nodes have lower connection levels than reddish nodes. Also, smaller nodes have lower connection levels than larger nodes. Labels represent gene symbols, exceptions are Ensembl IDs
P-values of the SNPs assigned to the genes of the trio of TF (inside parentheses)
| Trait | BovineHD0500009454 (VDR) | BovineHD1600024663 (LHX9) | BovineHD1300009960 (ZEB1) |
|---|---|---|---|
| TCW | 2.80E-02 | 3.66E-02 | 6.66E-04 |
| DRE | 4.21E-01 | 4.59E-02 | 1.96E-01 |
| REA | 1.24E-01 | 2.59E-02 | 2.21E-03 |
| BFT | 1.00E + 00 | 7.42E-01 | 9.05E-01 |
| LM | 9.15E-01 | 5.01E-02 | 1.84E-02 |
| LF | 4.67E-01 | 1.60E-01 | 4.41E-01 |
| PH | 1.23E-01 | 1.00E + 00 | 1.00E + 00 |
| CLO | 1.27E-01 | 6.16E-01 | 5.13E-01 |
TCW, Kg Total Carcass Weight, DRE, % Dressing, REA, cm Rib Eye Area, BFT, mm Back Fat Thickness, LM Lightness of Meat, LF Lightness of Fat, PH pH, CLO Cooking Loss