Wim Gorssen1, Roel Meyermans1, Steven Janssens1, Nadine Buys2. 1. Livestock Genetics, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, Box 2472, 3001, Leuven, Belgium. 2. Livestock Genetics, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 30, Box 2472, 3001, Leuven, Belgium. nadine.buys@kuleuven.be.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Runs of homozygosity (ROH) have become the state-of-the-art method for analysis of inbreeding in animal populations. Moreover, ROH are suited to detect signatures of selection via ROH islands and are used in other applications, such as genomic prediction and genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Currently, a vast amount of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data is available online, but most of these data have never been used for ROH analysis. Therefore, we performed a ROH analysis on large medium-density SNP datasets in eight animal species (cat, cattle, dog, goat, horse, pig, sheep and water buffalo; 442 different populations) and make these results publicly available. RESULTS: The results include an overview of ROH islands per population and a comparison of the incidence of these ROH islands among populations from the same species, which can assist researchers when studying other (livestock) populations or when looking for similar signatures of selection. We were able to confirm many known ROH islands, for example signatures of selection for the myostatin (MSTN) gene in sheep and horses. However, our results also included multiple other ROH islands, which are common to many populations and not identified to date (e.g. on chromosomes D4 and E2 in cats and on chromosome 6 in sheep). CONCLUSIONS: We are confident that our repository of ROH islands is a valuable reference for future studies. The discovered ROH island regions represent a unique starting point for new studies or can be used as a reference for future studies. Furthermore, we encourage authors to add their population-specific ROH findings to our repository.
BACKGROUND: Runs of homozygosity (ROH) have become the state-of-the-art method for analysis of inbreeding in animal populations. Moreover, ROH are suited to detect signatures of selection via ROH islands and are used in other applications, such as genomic prediction and genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Currently, a vast amount of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data is available online, but most of these data have never been used for ROH analysis. Therefore, we performed a ROH analysis on large medium-density SNP datasets in eight animal species (cat, cattle, dog, goat, horse, pig, sheep and water buffalo; 442 different populations) and make these results publicly available. RESULTS: The results include an overview of ROH islands per population and a comparison of the incidence of these ROH islands among populations from the same species, which can assist researchers when studying other (livestock) populations or when looking for similar signatures of selection. We were able to confirm many known ROH islands, for example signatures of selection for the myostatin (MSTN) gene in sheep and horses. However, our results also included multiple other ROH islands, which are common to many populations and not identified to date (e.g. on chromosomes D4 and E2 in cats and on chromosome 6 in sheep). CONCLUSIONS: We are confident that our repository of ROH islands is a valuable reference for future studies. The discovered ROH island regions represent a unique starting point for new studies or can be used as a reference for future studies. Furthermore, we encourage authors to add their population-specific ROH findings to our repository.
Authors: T Iso-Touru; M Tapio; J Vilkki; T Kiseleva; I Ammosov; Z Ivanova; R Popov; M Ozerov; J Kantanen Journal: Anim Genet Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 3.169
Authors: Adam R Boyko; Pascale Quignon; Lin Li; Jeffrey J Schoenebeck; Jeremiah D Degenhardt; Kirk E Lohmueller; Keyan Zhao; Abra Brisbin; Heidi G Parker; Bridgett M vonHoldt; Michele Cargill; Adam Auton; Andy Reynolds; Abdel G Elkahloun; Marta Castelhano; Dana S Mosher; Nathan B Sutter; Gary S Johnson; John Novembre; Melissa J Hubisz; Adam Siepel; Robert K Wayne; Carlos D Bustamante; Elaine A Ostrander Journal: PLoS Biol Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 8.029
Authors: Michael J Montague; Gang Li; Barbara Gandolfi; Razib Khan; Bronwen L Aken; Steven M J Searle; Patrick Minx; LaDeana W Hillier; Daniel C Koboldt; Brian W Davis; Carlos A Driscoll; Christina S Barr; Kevin Blackistone; Javier Quilez; Belen Lorente-Galdos; Tomas Marques-Bonet; Can Alkan; Gregg W C Thomas; Matthew W Hahn; Marilyn Menotti-Raymond; Stephen J O'Brien; Richard K Wilson; Leslie A Lyons; William J Murphy; Wesley C Warren Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2014-11-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Sarah E Beynon; Gancho T Slavov; Marta Farré; Bolormaa Sunduimijid; Kate Waddams; Brian Davies; William Haresign; James Kijas; Iona M MacLeod; C Jamie Newbold; Lynfa Davies; Denis M Larkin Journal: BMC Genet Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 2.797
Authors: Lakshmi K Matukumalli; Cynthia T Lawley; Robert D Schnabel; Jeremy F Taylor; Mark F Allan; Michael P Heaton; Jeff O'Connell; Stephen S Moore; Timothy P L Smith; Tad S Sonstegard; Curtis P Van Tassell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nora Laseca; Antonio Molina; Manuel Ramón; Mercedes Valera; Florencia Azcona; Ana Encina; Sebastián Demyda-Peyrás Journal: Front Vet Sci Date: 2022-02-17