| Literature DB >> 31170906 |
Jonathan D'Ambrosio1,2, Florence Phocas3, Pierrick Haffray2, Anastasia Bestin2, Sophie Brard-Fudulea4, Charles Poncet5, Edwige Quillet1, Nicolas Dechamp1, Clémence Fraslin1,2, Mathieu Charles1, Mathilde Dupont-Nivet1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selective breeding is a relatively recent practice in aquaculture species compared to terrestrial livestock. Nevertheless, the genetic variability of farmed salmonid lines, which have been selected for several generations, should be assessed. Indeed, a significant decrease in genetic variability due to high selection intensity could have occurred, potentially jeopardizing the long-term genetic progress as well as the adaptive capacities of populations facing change(s) in the environment. Thus, it is important to evaluate the impact of selection practices on genetic diversity to limit future inbreeding. The current study presents an analysis of genetic diversity within and between six French rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) experimental or commercial lines based on a medium-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chip and various molecular genetic indicators: fixation index (FST), linkage disequilibrium (LD), effective population size (Ne) and inbreeding coefficient derived from runs of homozygosity (ROH).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31170906 PMCID: PMC6554922 DOI: 10.1186/s12711-019-0468-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genet Sel Evol ISSN: 0999-193X Impact factor: 4.297
Fig. 1Chronology of the breeding schemes that were set up for the six French rainbow trout lines
Observed (Ho) and expected (He) heterozygosity for each rainbow trout line
| Line | N | All SNPs | SNPs with a MAF ≥ 5% | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ho | He | Ho | He | ||
| SA | 48 | 33.50* | 32.47 | 36.54* | 35.41 |
| SB | 48 | 34.24* | 33.34 | 36.94 | 35.96 |
| SC | 49 | 33.92* | 33.17 | 36.92 | 36.10 |
| SD | 48 | 35.01 | 34.18 | 37.47 | 36.58 |
| SU | 32 | 35.33 | 34.10 | 37.98 | 36.65 |
| SYn | 32 | 35.30 | 34.90 | 37.49 | 37.06 |
| SY | 33 | 35.23 | 34.87 | 37.47 | 37.05 |
* Significant p value (< 1%) for Kruskal–Wallis test for Ho value in comparison to Ho value for SY line
Fig. 2Principal component analysis plot of the genetic diversity between the French rainbow trout lines. PCA was performed with 290 individuals and 38,350 SNPs
Pairwise FST between lines of French rainbow trout
| Line | SA | SB | SC | SD | SU | SYn |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SB | 0.150 | |||||
| SC | 0.115 | 0.139 | ||||
| SD | 0.113 | 0.092 | 0.101 | |||
| SU | 0.128 | 0.128 | 0.113 | 0.08 | ||
| SYn | 0.101 | 0.096 | 0.086 | 0.057 | 0.024 | |
| SY | 0.105 | 0.102 | 0.091 | 0.065 | 0.038 | 0.007 |
Fig. 3Linkage disequilibrium (r2) decay with physical distance between markers in each of the six French rainbow trout lines
Fig. 4LD-based estimates of effective population size (N) in the French rainbow trout lines over the last ten generations
Fig. 5Box plots of total inbreeding (FROH) and recent inbreeding (FROH>10) for each rainbow trout line. Plain box: total inbreeding (FROH); hatched box: recent inbreeding (FROH>10)
Fig. 6Box plots of the line averages of inbreeding coefficients (FROH) derived from ROH per chromosome