Identification of unique ROH regions with unfavorable effects on production and fertility traits in Canadian Holsteins.
Journal
Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE
ISSN: 1297-9686
Titre abrégé: Genet Sel Evol
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9114088
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Aug 2021
30 Aug 2021
Historique:
received:
15
09
2020
accepted:
19
08
2021
entrez:
31
8
2021
pubmed:
1
9
2021
medline:
7
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The advent of genomic information and the reduction in the cost of genotyping have led to the use of genomic information to estimate genomic inbreeding as an alternative to pedigree inbreeding. Using genomic measures, effects of genomic inbreeding on production and fertility traits have been observed. However, there have been limited studies on the specific genomic regions causing the observed negative association with the trait of interest. Our aim was to identify unique run of homozygosity (ROH) genotypes present within a given genomic window that display negative associations with production and fertility traits and to quantify the effects of these identified ROH genotypes. In total, 50,575 genotypes based on a 50K single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array and 259,871 pedigree records were available. Of these 50,575 genotypes, 46,430 cows with phenotypic records for production and fertility traits and having a first calving date between 2008 and 2018 were available. Unique ROH genotypes identified using a sliding-window approach were fitted into an animal mixed model as fixed effects to determine their effect on production and fertility traits. In total, 133 and 34 unique ROH genotypes with unfavorable effects were identified for production and fertility traits, respectively, at a 1% genome-wise false discovery rate. Most of these ROH regions were located on bovine chromosomes 8, 13, 14 and 19 for both production and fertility traits. For production traits, the average of all the unfavorably identified unique ROH genotypes effects were estimated to decrease milk yield by 247.30 kg, fat yield by 11.46 kg and protein yield by 8.11 kg. Similarly, for fertility traits, an average 4.81-day extension in first service to conception, a 0.16 increase in number of services, and a - 0.07 incidence in 56-day non-return rate were observed. Furthermore, a ROH region located on bovine chromosome 19 was identified that, when homozygous, had a negative effect on production traits. Signatures of selection proximate to this region have implicated GH1 as a potential candidate gene, which encodes the growth hormone that binds the growth hormone receptor. This observed negative effect could be a consequence of unfavorable alleles in linkage disequilibrium with favorable alleles. ROH genotypes with unfavorable effects on production and fertility traits were identified within and across multiple traits on most chromosomes. These identified ROH genotypes could be included in mate selection programs to minimize their frequency in future generations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The advent of genomic information and the reduction in the cost of genotyping have led to the use of genomic information to estimate genomic inbreeding as an alternative to pedigree inbreeding. Using genomic measures, effects of genomic inbreeding on production and fertility traits have been observed. However, there have been limited studies on the specific genomic regions causing the observed negative association with the trait of interest. Our aim was to identify unique run of homozygosity (ROH) genotypes present within a given genomic window that display negative associations with production and fertility traits and to quantify the effects of these identified ROH genotypes.
METHODS
METHODS
In total, 50,575 genotypes based on a 50K single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array and 259,871 pedigree records were available. Of these 50,575 genotypes, 46,430 cows with phenotypic records for production and fertility traits and having a first calving date between 2008 and 2018 were available. Unique ROH genotypes identified using a sliding-window approach were fitted into an animal mixed model as fixed effects to determine their effect on production and fertility traits.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 133 and 34 unique ROH genotypes with unfavorable effects were identified for production and fertility traits, respectively, at a 1% genome-wise false discovery rate. Most of these ROH regions were located on bovine chromosomes 8, 13, 14 and 19 for both production and fertility traits. For production traits, the average of all the unfavorably identified unique ROH genotypes effects were estimated to decrease milk yield by 247.30 kg, fat yield by 11.46 kg and protein yield by 8.11 kg. Similarly, for fertility traits, an average 4.81-day extension in first service to conception, a 0.16 increase in number of services, and a - 0.07 incidence in 56-day non-return rate were observed. Furthermore, a ROH region located on bovine chromosome 19 was identified that, when homozygous, had a negative effect on production traits. Signatures of selection proximate to this region have implicated GH1 as a potential candidate gene, which encodes the growth hormone that binds the growth hormone receptor. This observed negative effect could be a consequence of unfavorable alleles in linkage disequilibrium with favorable alleles.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
ROH genotypes with unfavorable effects on production and fertility traits were identified within and across multiple traits on most chromosomes. These identified ROH genotypes could be included in mate selection programs to minimize their frequency in future generations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34461820
doi: 10.1186/s12711-021-00660-z
pii: 10.1186/s12711-021-00660-z
pmc: PMC8406729
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
68Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
J Dairy Sci. 1989 Nov;72(11):3035-9
pubmed: 2625493
Genetics. 2011 Sep;189(1):237-49
pubmed: 21705750
BMC Genet. 2014 Jan 15;15:8
pubmed: 24428918
J Dairy Sci. 2006 Jun;89(6):2257-67
pubmed: 16702293
J Dairy Sci. 2017 Jun;100(6):4721-4730
pubmed: 28434751
J Dairy Sci. 2005 Jun;88(6):2199-208
pubmed: 15905449
J Dairy Sci. 2007 Sep;90(9):4411-9
pubmed: 17699061
J Dairy Sci. 2017 Dec;100(12):10251-10271
pubmed: 29153164
Genet Sel Evol. 2011 Jan 20;43(1):4
pubmed: 21251244
J Dairy Sci. 2019 Mar;102(3):2807-2817
pubmed: 30660425
J Dairy Sci. 2005 Jan;88(1):376-85
pubmed: 15591402
Anim Genet. 2010 Aug;41(4):377-89
pubmed: 20096028
BMC Genomics. 2014 Jun 17;15:478
pubmed: 24935670
J Dairy Sci. 2010 Jul;93(7):3331-45
pubmed: 20630249
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Dec;101(12):11097-11107
pubmed: 30316595
Sci Rep. 2020 Mar 2;10(1):3804
pubmed: 32123255
Anim Genet. 2014 Oct;45(5):618-28
pubmed: 24975026
J Dairy Sci. 2016 Sep;99(9):7274-7288
pubmed: 27394947
Genet Sel Evol. 2015 Nov 30;47:94
pubmed: 26620491
J Anim Breed Genet. 2008 Aug;125(4):280-8
pubmed: 18717969
BMC Genomics. 2018 Jan 27;19(1):98
pubmed: 29374456
J Anim Sci. 2017 Oct;95(10):4318-4332
pubmed: 29108032
BMC Genomics. 2020 Sep 1;21(1):605
pubmed: 32873253
Nat Rev Genet. 2009 Nov;10(11):783-96
pubmed: 19834483
J Dairy Sci. 2007 Jan;90(1):493-500
pubmed: 17183118
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 12;8(11):e80219
pubmed: 24265800
J Dairy Sci. 2017 Sep;100(9):7295-7305
pubmed: 28647327
Annu Rev Genet. 1977;11:49-78
pubmed: 413473
J Dairy Sci. 1992 Apr;75(4):1112-8
pubmed: 1578024
J Vet Diagn Invest. 2001 Jul;13(4):283-9
pubmed: 11478598
J Dairy Sci. 2013 Jul;96(7):4697-706
pubmed: 23684028
PLoS One. 2013 Nov 14;8(11):e80813
pubmed: 24348915
J Dairy Sci. 2000 Aug;83(8):1856-64
pubmed: 10984163
J Dairy Sci. 2000 Sep;83(9):2131-8
pubmed: 11003248
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Oct 1;89(19):9225-9
pubmed: 1384046
Genet Sel Evol. 2019 Sep 27;51(1):54
pubmed: 31558150
BMC Genomics. 2015 Oct 19;16:813
pubmed: 26481110
Biol Reprod. 2016 Jan;94(1):19
pubmed: 26607721
Reprod Fertil Dev. 2017 Apr;29(4):712-720
pubmed: 26678044
J Dairy Sci. 2020 Jun;103(6):5183-5199
pubmed: 32278553
Genet Sel Evol. 2014 Nov 18;46:71
pubmed: 25407532