| Literature DB >> 27776178 |
Julio Vargas1, Vincenzo Landi2,3, Amparo Martínez2,3, Mayra Gómez2,3, María Esperanza Camacho4, Luz Ángela Álvarez5, Lenin Aguirre6, Juan Vicente Delgado2.
Abstract
Macabea cattle are the only Bos taurus breed that have adapted to the wet tropical conditions of the Amazon. This breed has integrated into the culture of the indigenous Shuar-Asuar nations probably since its origins, being one of the few European zoogenetic resources assimilated by the deep-jungle Amazon communities. Despite its potential for local endogenous sustainable development, this breed is currently endangered. The present study used molecular genetics tools to investigate the within- and between-breeds diversity, in order to characterize the breed population, define its associations with other breeds, and infer its origin and evolution. The within-breed genetic diversity showed high values, as indicated by all genetic parameters, such as the mean number of alleles (MNA = 7.25±2.03), the observed heterozygosity (Ho = 0.72±0.02) and the expected heterozygosity (He = 0.72±0.02). The between-breeds diversity analysis, which included factorial correspondence analysis, Reynolds genetic distance, neighbor-joining analysis, and genetic structure analysis, showed that the Macabea breed belongs to the group of the American Creoles, with a Southern-Spain origin. Our outcomes demonstrated that the Macabea breed has a high level of purity and null influences of exotic cosmopolitan breeds with European or Asiatic origin. This breed is an important zoogenetic resource of Ecuador, with relevant and unique attributes; therefore, there is an urgent need to develop conservation strategies for the Macabea breed.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27776178 PMCID: PMC5077120 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0165398
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Four of the Macabea bovines included in this study.
Outcomes of the Microsatellite Analysis.
| Microsatellite | NA | He | Ho | PIC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 0.731 | 0.680 | 0.671 | 0.072 | 0.250 | |
| 6 | 0.477 | 0.520 | 0.425 | -0.093 | 0.437 | |
| 4 | 0.666 | 0.600 | 0.600 | 0.101 | 0.084 | |
| 8 | 0.839 | 0.720 | 0.801 | 0.145 | 0.020 | |
| 5 | 0.578 | 0.640 | 0.527 | -0.110 | 0.598 | |
| 8 | 0.739 | 0.760 | 0.694 | -0.029 | 0.670 | |
| 10 | 0.898 | 1.000 | 0.866 | -0.117 | 0.073 | |
| 8 | 0.851 | 0.920 | 0.813 | -0.082 | 0.379 | |
| 7 | 0.746 | 0.800 | 0.691 | -0.074 | 0.686 | |
| 6 | 0.456 | 0.440 | 0.410 | 0.035 | 0.0130 | |
| 7 | 0.774 | 0.800 | 0.720 | -0.035 | 0.663 | |
| 7 | 0.753 | 0.720 | 0.699 | 0.044 | 0.417 | |
| 10 | 0.810 | 0.800 | 0.769 | 0.012 | 0.253 | |
| 8 | 0.790 | 0.800 | 0.741 | -0.013 | 0.779 | |
| 5 | 0.659 | 0.760 | 0.607 | -0.157 | 0.311 | |
| 9 | 0.839 | 0.909 | 0.798 | -0.085 | 0.156 | |
| 6 | 0.734 | 0.680 | 0.678 | 0.075 | 0.274 | |
| 8 | 0.813 | 0.880 | 0.769 | -0.084 | 0.852 | |
| 7 | 0.740 | 0.680 | 0.689 | 0.082 | 0.493 | |
| 4 | 0.602 | 0.280 | 0.503 | 0.540 | 0.00 | |
| 9 | 0.771 | 0.667 | 0.719 | 0.138 | 0.275 | |
| 5 | 0.654 | 0.560 | 0.576 | 0.146 | 0.096 | |
| 8 | 0.738 | 0.800 | 0.679 | -0.086 | 0.075 | |
| 6 | 0.614 | 0.840 | 0.558 | -0.379 | 0.284 | |
| 8 | 0.684 | 0.520 | 0.629 | 0.244 | 0.007 | |
| 12 | 0.848 | 0.800 | 0.812 | 0.058 | 0.408 | |
| 5 | 0.735 | 0.667 | 0.666 | 0.095 | 0.927 | |
| 11 | 0.855 | 0.880 | 0.819 | -0.030 | 0.925 | |
| Mean | 7.3 | 0.728 | 0.719 | 0.676 | 0.015 | 0.372 |
* Significance value (P<0.05);
NA: number of alleles detected; He: unbiased expected heterozygosities; Ho: observed heterozygosities (Ho); PIC: content of polymorphic information; P-value: probability values obtained in the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium test.
Biodiversity Parameters of the 17 Analyzed Breeds.
| Population | SZ | NA | AR | He | Ho | HW | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BON | 25 | 5.74±1.76 | 5.28 | 0.70±0.02 | 0.74±0.02 | -0.06 | 1 |
| HV | 22 | 7.74±1.73 | 7.24 | 0.78±0.02 | 0.78±0.02 | 0.00 | 2 |
| EC | 58 | 9.47±2.44 | 7.64 | 0.79±0.02 | 0.72±0.01 | 0.09 | 4 |
| RGA | 50 | 7.47±1.95 | 6.12 | 0.71±0.03 | 0.70±0.01 | 0.02 | 1 |
| BC | 40 | 7.68±2.16 | 6.76 | 0.78±0.02 | 0.73±0.02 | 0.06 | 1 |
| MA | 50 | 7.79±2.55 | 6.19 | 0.74±0.02 | 0.72±0.01 | 0.02 | 1 |
| HER | 88 | 6.63±1.54 | 5.27 | 0.70±0.02 | 0.65±0.01 | 0.07 | 2 |
| JER | 20 | 4.79±1.03 | 4.57 | 0.65±0.03 | 0.67±0.02 | -0.03 | 1 |
| BWS | 29 | 6.79±2.15 | 6.10 | 0.73±0.02 | 0.74±0.02 | -0.02 | 2 |
| CHAR | 58 | 6.95±1.99 | 5.79 | 0.71±0.03 | 0.68±0.01 | 0.03 | 1 |
| FRI | 50 | 6.89±2.40 | 5.82 | 0.71±0.03 | 0.73±0.01 | -0.02 | 1 |
| SIM | 19 | 6.16±1.92 | 5.88 | 0.67±0.03 | 0.65±0.03 | 0.03 | 2 |
| GYR | 36 | 7.00±1.94 | 5.97 | 0.67±0.03 | 0.62±0.02 | 0.07 | 4 |
| BRH | 41 | 7.74±2.40 | 6.33 | 0.70±0.02 | 0.68±0.02 | 0.03 | 3 |
| NEL | 49 | 6.89±1.94 | 5.41 | 0.63±0.02 | 0.59±0.02 | 0.07 | 7 |
| ZEBU | 50 | 7.53±2.06 | 6.28 | 0.71±0.04 | 0.71±0.01 | -0.00 | 4 |
| MAC | 25 | 7.79±2.02 | 6.92 | 0.73±0.03 | 0.73±0.02 | 0.01 | 3 |
| Mean | 42 | 7.13±2.00 | 6.23 | 0.70±0.02 | 0.74±0.02 | 0.03 |
*: Significant value (P<0.05);
SZ: sample size; NA: total number of alleles; AR: allelic richness (considering 16 samples); He: expected heterozygosity; Ho: observed heterozygosity; FIS: fixation index within population; HW, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (deviated loci per breed; P<0.05); BON: Blanco Orejinegro; HV: Hartón del Valle; EC: Ecuadorian Creole Ecuadorian of Southern; RGA: Rubia Gallega; BC: Berrenda en Colorado; MA: Marismeña; HER: Hereford; JER: Jersey; BWS: Brown Swiss; CHAR: Charolais; FRI: Holstein Friesian; SIM: Simmental; ZEBU, Zebu; NE: Nelore; BRH: Brahman; GYR: Gyr; MAC: Macabea.
Fig 2Pairwise FST distance matrix graphical representation.
Outcomes from the Analysis of Molecular Variance: results are expressed as a percentage of explained variance and resulting fixation indices, comparing within- and between-breeds according to their phylogenetic and geographical origins.
| factor considered | ||
|---|---|---|
| phylogenetic | geography | |
| sum of square/ degree of freedom | ||
| among groups | 537.214/1 | 654.406/3 |
| 849.924/15 | 732.732/13 | |
| 8642.129/1403 | 8642.129/1403 | |
| variance components | ||
| among groups | 0.90 | 0.60 |
| 0.61 | 0.60 | |
| 6.15 | 6.16 | |
| percentage variation | ||
| among groups | 11.67 | 7.86 |
| 8.03 | 8.24 | |
| 80.30 | 83.90 | |
| f-statistics | ||
| 0.20 | 0.16 | |
| among breeds within group (fsc) | 0.10 | 0.10 |
| among breeds total variability (fst) | 0.12 | 0.10 |
***: P-value<0.001,
**: P-value<0.005
Fig 3Graphic representation of the factorial correspondence analysis results.
a) Factorial correspondence analysis results involving the 17 cattle breed populations; and b) factorial correspondence analysis results without Bos indicus breeds. In a) Red: ZEBU; Green: GYR. BRH. NEL; Blue: BON, HV. EC, RGA. BC, MA, HER, JER, BWS, CHAR, FRI, SIM, MAC; in b) Red: MAC; Green: HER; Blue: BON, HV, EC, RGA, BC, MA, JER, BWS, CHAR, FRI, SIM.
Fig 4Neighbor-joining dendrogram constructed from the Reynolds genetic distances between 17 cattle breeds.
EC: Ecuadorian Creole Ecuadorian of Southern; HV: Hartón del Valle; FRI: Holstein Friesian; BON: Blanco Orejinegro; MA: Marismeña; BC: Berrendaen Colorado; BWS: Brown Swiss; SIM: Simmental; HER: Herford; CHAR: Charolais; JER: Jersey; RGA: Rubia Gallega; MAC: Macabea; ZE: Zebu; NEL: Nellore; BRH: Brahman; GYR: Gyr.
Fig 5Graphic representation of the genetic structure analysis of the 17 cattle breeds.
In each K graphic, the color represents the genetics partition found by the software.
Fig 6Geographical representation of the interpolation of admixture coefficients (Q matrix) for clusters k2 and k3 including MAC, EC BON and HV breeds only.
Each color represents the genetics partitions spotted on geographical surface through Kriging algorithm.