Genetic architecture of quantitative traits in beef cattle revealed by genome wide association studies of imputed whole genome sequence variants: I: feed efficiency and component traits.
Beef cattle
Feed efficiency
Genetic architecture
Genome wide association studies
Imputed whole genome sequence variants
Journal
BMC genomics
ISSN: 1471-2164
Titre abrégé: BMC Genomics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100965258
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Jan 2020
13 Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
21
06
2019
accepted:
02
12
2019
entrez:
15
1
2020
pubmed:
15
1
2020
medline:
9
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Genome wide association studies (GWAS) on residual feed intake (RFI) and its component traits including daily dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG), and metabolic body weight (MWT) were conducted in a population of 7573 animals from multiple beef cattle breeds based on 7,853,211 imputed whole genome sequence variants. The GWAS results were used to elucidate genetic architectures of the feed efficiency related traits in beef cattle. The DNA variant allele substitution effects approximated a bell-shaped distribution for all the traits while the distribution of additive genetic variances explained by single DNA variants followed a scaled inverse chi-squared distribution to a greater extent. With a threshold of P-value < 1.00E-05, 16, 72, 88, and 116 lead DNA variants on multiple chromosomes were significantly associated with RFI, DMI, ADG, and MWT, respectively. In addition, lead DNA variants with potentially large pleiotropic effects on DMI, ADG, and MWT were found on chromosomes 6, 14 and 20. On average, missense, 3'UTR, 5'UTR, and other regulatory region variants exhibited larger allele substitution effects in comparison to other functional classes. Intergenic and intron variants captured smaller proportions of additive genetic variance per DNA variant. Instead 3'UTR and synonymous variants explained a greater amount of genetic variance per DNA variant for all the traits examined while missense, 5'UTR and other regulatory region variants accounted for relatively more additive genetic variance per sequence variant for RFI and ADG, respectively. In total, 25 to 27 enriched cellular and molecular functions were identified with lipid metabolism and carbohydrate metabolism being the most significant for the feed efficiency traits. RFI is controlled by many DNA variants with relatively small effects whereas DMI, ADG, and MWT are influenced by a few DNA variants with large effects and many DNA variants with small effects. Nucleotide polymorphisms in regulatory region and synonymous functional classes play a more important role per sequence variant in determining variation of the feed efficiency traits. The genetic architecture as revealed by the GWAS of the imputed 7,853,211 DNA variants will improve our understanding on the genetic control of feed efficiency traits in beef cattle.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Genome wide association studies (GWAS) on residual feed intake (RFI) and its component traits including daily dry matter intake (DMI), average daily gain (ADG), and metabolic body weight (MWT) were conducted in a population of 7573 animals from multiple beef cattle breeds based on 7,853,211 imputed whole genome sequence variants. The GWAS results were used to elucidate genetic architectures of the feed efficiency related traits in beef cattle.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The DNA variant allele substitution effects approximated a bell-shaped distribution for all the traits while the distribution of additive genetic variances explained by single DNA variants followed a scaled inverse chi-squared distribution to a greater extent. With a threshold of P-value < 1.00E-05, 16, 72, 88, and 116 lead DNA variants on multiple chromosomes were significantly associated with RFI, DMI, ADG, and MWT, respectively. In addition, lead DNA variants with potentially large pleiotropic effects on DMI, ADG, and MWT were found on chromosomes 6, 14 and 20. On average, missense, 3'UTR, 5'UTR, and other regulatory region variants exhibited larger allele substitution effects in comparison to other functional classes. Intergenic and intron variants captured smaller proportions of additive genetic variance per DNA variant. Instead 3'UTR and synonymous variants explained a greater amount of genetic variance per DNA variant for all the traits examined while missense, 5'UTR and other regulatory region variants accounted for relatively more additive genetic variance per sequence variant for RFI and ADG, respectively. In total, 25 to 27 enriched cellular and molecular functions were identified with lipid metabolism and carbohydrate metabolism being the most significant for the feed efficiency traits.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
RFI is controlled by many DNA variants with relatively small effects whereas DMI, ADG, and MWT are influenced by a few DNA variants with large effects and many DNA variants with small effects. Nucleotide polymorphisms in regulatory region and synonymous functional classes play a more important role per sequence variant in determining variation of the feed efficiency traits. The genetic architecture as revealed by the GWAS of the imputed 7,853,211 DNA variants will improve our understanding on the genetic control of feed efficiency traits in beef cattle.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31931702
doi: 10.1186/s12864-019-6362-1
pii: 10.1186/s12864-019-6362-1
pmc: PMC6956504
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
36Subventions
Organisme : Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency
ID : 2014F047R
Références
Am J Hum Genet. 2011 Mar 11;88(3):294-305
pubmed: 21376301
Ann Surg Oncol. 2011 Jan;18(1):261-72
pubmed: 20734150
Sci Rep. 2016 Nov 28;6:38073
pubmed: 27892541
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D701-D710
pubmed: 30407520
Nat Genet. 2002 Apr;30(4):363-4
pubmed: 11896390
Nat Genet. 2011 Jun;43(6):519-25
pubmed: 21552263
Nat Genet. 2017 Aug 30;49(9):1304-1310
pubmed: 28854176
Nature. 2007 Jun 7;447(7145):661-78
pubmed: 17554300
Acta Biochim Pol. 2017;64(2):227-231
pubmed: 28399188
Nat Genet. 2015 Oct;47(10):1114-20
pubmed: 26323059
J Anim Sci. 2013 May;91(5):2067-76
pubmed: 23463551
Bioinform Biol Insights. 2015 Nov 15;9(Suppl 1):29-46
pubmed: 26609224
Sci Rep. 2018 May 8;8(1):7303
pubmed: 29740082
J Anim Sci. 2014 Aug;92(8):3270-83
pubmed: 25074450
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2017 Feb;18(2):102-114
pubmed: 27847391
J Anim Sci. 2001 Nov;79(11):2805-11
pubmed: 11768108
J Anim Sci. 2009 Apr;87(14 Suppl):E64-71
pubmed: 19028857
Genet Sel Evol. 2017 Sep 18;49(1):68
pubmed: 28923017
Hum Genet. 2008 Dec;124(5):439-50
pubmed: 18850115
Sci Rep. 2017 Apr 4;7(1):615
pubmed: 28377593
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 20;8(11):e80882
pubmed: 24278337
Anim Genet. 2015 Feb;46(1):55-9
pubmed: 25393962
Gigascience. 2015 Oct 26;4:49
pubmed: 26504517
Nat Genet. 2014 Feb;46(2):100-6
pubmed: 24473328
BMC Genet. 2011 Dec 14;12:103
pubmed: 22168586
J Anim Sci. 2010 Mar;88(3):885-94
pubmed: 19966161
BMC Genomics. 2015 Dec 18;16:1073
pubmed: 26678995
PLoS Genet. 2009 Jun;5(6):e1000529
pubmed: 19543373
BMC Genomics. 2018 Apr 5;19(1):237
pubmed: 29618315
Am J Hum Genet. 2016 Jan 7;98(1):116-26
pubmed: 26748515
J Anim Sci. 2017 Jul;95(7):2813-1824
pubmed: 28727111
Am J Hum Genet. 2011 Jan 7;88(1):76-82
pubmed: 21167468
BMC Genomics. 2014 Jun 06;15:442
pubmed: 24906442
BMC Genet. 2009 Aug 04;10:43
pubmed: 19653884
J Anim Sci. 2013 Aug;91(8):3612-33
pubmed: 23851991
J Anim Sci. 2013 Dec;91(12):5789-800
pubmed: 24146149
Genet Sel Evol. 2017 Feb 21;49(1):24
pubmed: 28222685
Endocrinology. 2008 May;149(5):2403-10
pubmed: 18258678
J Anim Sci. 2016 Apr;94(4):1342-53
pubmed: 27135994
J Anim Sci. 1995 Feb;73(2):365-72
pubmed: 7601766
Nat Rev Genet. 2010 Jul;11(7):499-511
pubmed: 20517342
BMC Genet. 2015 Nov 21;16:135
pubmed: 26589139
J Anim Sci. 2011 Jun;89(6):1731-41
pubmed: 21297062
BMC Genomics. 2014 Nov 20;15:1004
pubmed: 25410110
BMC Genomics. 2014 Jun 17;15:478
pubmed: 24935670
J Anim Sci. 2006 Jan;84(1):145-53
pubmed: 16361501
BMC Genomics. 2017 Nov 25;18(1):910
pubmed: 29178833
Genet Sel Evol. 2015 Apr 01;47:23
pubmed: 25884158
Genet Sel Evol. 2015 Sep 17;47:71
pubmed: 26381777
BMC Genomics. 2017 May 18;18(1):386
pubmed: 28521758
J Anim Sci. 2017 Oct;95(10):4430-4439
pubmed: 29108031
J Endocrinol. 2016 Feb;228(2):R45-56
pubmed: 26577933
Nat Genet. 2014 Aug;46(8):858-65
pubmed: 25017103
Genome Biol. 2016 Jan 26;17:13
pubmed: 26813401
Genome Res. 2009 Sep;19(9):1655-64
pubmed: 19648217
J Anim Sci. 2007 Oct;85(10):2711-20
pubmed: 17526662
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Nov;93(11):4532-41
pubmed: 18728164
J Anim Sci. 2007 Jun;85(6):1479-86
pubmed: 17296777
BMC Genomics. 2014 Jun 06;15:436
pubmed: 24903263
Bioinformatics. 2011 Aug 15;27(16):2300-1
pubmed: 21697123
Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2009 Feb;16(2):144-50
pubmed: 19182800
Physiol Rev. 1947 Oct;27(4):511-41
pubmed: 20267758
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Jan;288(1):E92-105
pubmed: 15367391
Nat Genet. 2010 Jul;42(7):565-9
pubmed: 20562875
Front Genet. 2012 Aug 14;3:152
pubmed: 22912646
Sci Rep. 2016 Dec 22;6:39493
pubmed: 28004777
Nat Hum Behav. 2018 Jan;2(1):6-10
pubmed: 30980045
J Anim Sci. 2013 Oct;91(10):4669-78
pubmed: 24078618