| Literature DB >> 28288558 |
Luiz F Brito1,2, John C McEwan3, Stephen P Miller4,3, Natalie K Pickering5, Wendy E Bain3, Ken G Dodds3, Flávio S Schenkel4, Shannon M Clarke3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Knowledge about the genetic diversity of a population is a crucial parameter for the implementation of successful genomic selection and conservation of genetic resources. The aim of this research was to establish the scientific basis for the implementation of genomic selection in a composite Terminal sheep breeding scheme by providing consolidated linkage disequilibrium (LD) measures across SNP markers, estimating consistency of gametic phase between breed-groups, and assessing genetic diversity measures, such as effective population size (Ne), and population structure parameters, using a large number of animals (n = 14,845) genotyped with a high density SNP chip (606,006 markers). Information generated in this research will be useful for optimizing molecular breeding values predictions and managing the available genetic resources.Entities:
Keywords: Consistency of gametic phase; Crossbreeding; Effective population size; Linkage disequilibrium; Population structure; Sheep
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28288558 PMCID: PMC5348757 DOI: 10.1186/s12863-017-0492-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genet ISSN: 1471-2156 Impact factor: 2.797
Fig. 1Marker density over the genome represented by the number of SNP (blue bars) and length of chromosome spanned (yellow bars)
Fig. 2Minor allele frequency distributions for the whole genome after quality control
Fig. 3Distribution of SNPs by MAF ranges and breed group
Mean inbreeding coefficients (± SD) and inbreeding range per year
| FPED | FEH | FVR | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Birth year | Mean ± SD | Range | Mean ± SD | Range | Mean ± SD | Range |
| 2010 | 0.0005 ± 0.0049 | 0.0000 – 0.0744 | −0.0165 ± 0.0256 | −0.0707 – 0.1270 | −0.0145 ± 0.0164 | −0.0651 – 0.20137 |
| 2011 | 0.0008 ± 0.0062 | 0.0000 – 0.1672 | −0.0113 ± 0.0290 | −0.0790 – 0.3006 | −0.0167 ± 0.0214 | −0.0933 – 0.3278 |
| 2012 | 0.0017 ± 0.0083 | 0.0000 – 0.0851 | −0.0078 ± 0.0309 | −0.0734 – 0.1381 | −0.0138 ± 0.0226 | −0.0895 – 0.1631 |
| 2013 | 0.0041 ± 0.0128 | 0.0000 – 0.1569 | −0.0030 ± 0.0353 | −0.0693 – 0.1825 | 0.0004 ± 0.0332 | −0.0670 – 0.2394 |
| 2014 | 0.0030 ± 0.0118 | 0.0000 – 0.2776 | −0.0047 ± 0.0312 | −0.0633 – 0.2675 | −0.0003 ± 0.0317 | −0.0570 – 0.2806 |
| All | 0.0021 ± 0.0095 | 0.0000 – 0.2776 | −0.0087 ± 0.0314 | −0.0790 – 0.3006 | −0.0091 ± 0.0276 | −0.0933 – 0.3278 |
F pedigree inbreeding coefficient, F inbreeding coefficient based on excess of homozygosity, F inbreeding coefficient based on G matrix (VanRaden), SD standard deviation
Average linkage disequilibrium (r2) between adjacent SNP pairs by chromosome and including all genotyped animals (n = 14,845)
| Chr. | N pairs | Mean r2 | Mean dist. (kb) | Max dist. (kb) | Chr | N pairs | Mean r2 | Mean dist. (kb) | Max dist. (kb) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 58,073 | 0.263 | 4.74 | 117.87 | 15 | 17,068 | 0.264 | 4.74 | 93.00 |
| 2 | 52,391 | 0.275 | 4.75 | 152.46 | 16 | 14,974 | 0.249 | 4.78 | 74.52 |
| 3 | 46,858 | 0.276 | 4.78 | 146.79 | 17 | 15,050 | 0.247 | 4.80 | 115.76 |
| 4 | 24,928 | 0.267 | 4.78 | 204.62 | 18 | 14,599 | 0.263 | 4.69 | 138.63 |
| 5 | 22,793 | 0.263 | 4.73 | 305.58 | 19 | 13,094 | 0.260 | 4.60 | 96.23 |
| 6 | 24,338 | 0.262 | 4.80 | 70.15 | 20 | 11,033 | 0.255 | 4.62 | 132.22 |
| 7 | 21,261 | 0.264 | 4.71 | 268.22 | 21 | 10,422 | 0.246 | 4.80 | 173.10 |
| 8 | 19,070 | 0.260 | 4.75 | 131.01 | 22 | 10,779 | 0.254 | 4.71 | 108.88 |
| 9 | 19,831 | 0.259 | 4.77 | 85.59 | 23 | 12,949 | 0.245 | 4.81 | 45.27 |
| 10 | 17,848 | 0.267 | 4.84 | 357.01 | 24 | 9,190 | 0.262 | 4.57 | 70.25 |
| 11 | 13,820 | 0.271 | 4.50 | 139.12 | 25 | 9,786 | 0.249 | 4.63 | 104.82 |
| 12 | 17,047 | 0.257 | 4.64 | 61.26 | 26 | 9,411 | 0.244 | 4.68 | 44.36 |
| 13 | 17,639 | 0.282 | 4.71 | 343.36 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 | 13,624 | 0.261 | 4.60 | 140.07 |
Chr chromosome, N pairs number of SNP pairs, Max dist. maximum distance
Fig. 4Average linkage disequilibrium (r2) at given distances for all animals included in this study
Fig. 5a Ancestral and recent effective population size in different time points in the past (Number of generations ago). b Ancestral and recent effective population size in different time points in the past (until 50 generations ago)
Fig. 6Consistency of gametic phase (Pearson correlations of signed r-values) at given distances for six selected breed-group pairs. PR: Primera, LS: Lamb Supreme, TX: Texel and DP: Maternal/Dual-Purpose
Fig. 7Principal component decomposition of the genomic relationship matrix colored by breed-group
Fig. 8Genomic (FVR) and pedigree inbreeding coefficients for all the genotyped animals
Effective population size (Ne) for composite breeds and Ne for their ancestor breeds reported in the literature
| Composite breed (Ne) | Ancestor breeds | Ne |
|---|---|---|
| Lamb Supreme (380) | Poll-Dorset | 318a |
| Wiltshire | 100a | |
| Romney | 405a | |
| Dorset | 134a | |
| Coopworth | 98b | |
| Texel | 282a | |
| Primera (974) | Suffolk | 569a |
| Poll-Dorset | 318a | |
| Dorper | 264a | |
| Hampshire | - | |
| Dorset | 134a | |
| Dual-Purpose (125) | Texel | 282a |
| Lamb Supreme | 380c | |
| Romney | 405a | |
| Perendale | 109b | |
| Finn | 795a | |
| Coopworth | 98b | |
| Poll-Dorset | 318a | |
| East Friesian | 186a |
aKijas et al. [23]; bVincent Prieur, AgroParisTech and AgResearch, Master dissertation; ccurrent study