Estimation of effective population size and inbreeding coefficient parameters based on genomic chip data in Iranian Holstein cattle

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

2 Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

Abstract

Abstract
Introduction: Holstein cattle, originating from Northern Europe, have spread to countries like Iran, primarily due to their high milk production. Breeding programs for this breed have made significant progress based on economic traits such as milk, fat, and protein yield. In Iran, Holsteins play a crucial role in dairy production, and breeding programs aim to enhance genetic quality. Understanding the population structure of this breed is essential for achieving high productivity, involving genetic diversity analysis and parameters like linkage disequilibrium (LD), effective population size (Ne), and inbreeding coefficient. Genomic technologies, such as genomic chips, assist breeders in devising precise strategies to improve desirable traits. LD provides insights into allele relationships, population history, and Ne, with reduced Ne leading to inbreeding, genetic diversity loss, and potential production issues. High inbreeding negatively affects productivity and health. Recent advancements in sequencing technologies allow for more accurate estimations of Ne and inbreeding. This study aimed to investigate the structure of linkage disequilibrium (LD), effective population size (Ne), and inbreeding in Iranian Holstein cattle populations.
Materials and Methods: In the present study, genomic data from 25 and 43 individuals of the Iranian Holstein populations were utilized. Quality control and data screening were performed using the Plink 1.9 software. Specifically, loci and individuals with more than 5% missing genotypes, SNP markers with a minor allele frequency (MAF) less than 5%, and SNP markers that were out of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium based on Bonferroni correction were excluded. The corrected pairwise r² values for SNP markers within a 40 Mbp range and the effective population size (Ne) for both past and current generations were calculated using the SNeP ver1.1 software. The r² values and Ne estimates for past and current generations were determined using the pairwise r² values of SNP markers, with distances up to 20 Mbp, using the SNeP ver1.1 software. The calculated r² values were adjusted for sample size within each population (Barbato et al., 2015). Subsequently, the corrected LD information for each population was used to calculate the effective population size. Inbreeding coefficients were calculated using four methods: the genetic relationship matrix (FGRM), homozygosity rate (FHOM), gamete correlation (FUNI), and runs of homozygosity (FROH). The FGRM, FHOM, and FUNI values were obtained using the GCTA software. To estimate FROH, ROH values were first calculated using the PLINK ver1.9 software, and then FROH values were derived using the related formula.
Results and Discussion: This study utilized two genomic datasets. The first dataset included 43 animals and 47,843 SNP markers, which, after excluding incomplete data and markers with a minor allele frequency (MAF) under 5%, resulted in 40,105 markers. These markers, with an average distance of 62.99 kb, were used for further analysis in 41 animals. The second dataset, consisting of 25 animals and 54,609 SNP markers, after removing markers with missing genotypes and those with MAF under 5%, included 41,535 markers. These markers, with an average distance of 60.29 kb, were used for final analysis in 25 animals. After quality control, 13,551 common SNP markers were found between the two datasets, though the analyses were conducted independently for each dataset. The r² values for the IRI-S1 and IRI-S2 populations were 0.311 and 0.268, respectively, decreasing to 0.03 and 0.47 at a 38 Mb distance. This reduction indicates a diminishing phase of LD as the distance between markers increases. Effective population size (Ne) is crucial for maintaining genetic diversity and ensuring the survival of Holstein populations. Accurate Ne estimation is essential to prevent genetic decline and make informed decisions for genetic conservation. One common method for estimating Ne involves using linkage disequilibrium (LD) information, which depends on the availability of extensive genetic marker data. In this study, the SNeP software was used to estimate Ne, providing a valuable tool for understanding the demographic history of Holstein cattle. The effective population size (Ne) in the current generation for IRI-S1 and IRI-S2 was 121 and 130, respectively, while the lowest Ne values, recorded in the five preceding generations, were 103 and 99. Inbreeding coefficients using the FGRM, FHOM, and FUNI methods were 0.035 for IRI-S1 and ranged from 0.036 to 0.047 for IRI-S2. Additionally, the highest inbreeding coefficients based on FROH were 0.095 for IRI-S1 and 0.091 for IRI-S2, observed at MAF values below 0.01. These results indicate that as MAF decreases, inbreeding increases, while FROH values decrease as MAF increases from 0.01 to 0.02.
Conclusion:
The results indicate a significant decrease in linkage disequilibrium (LD) with increasing marker distance in the studied populations. This declining trend aligns with previous studies in various cattle and poultry breeds, reflecting the impact of population history and selective breeding programs. The estimates related to the effective population size (Ne) indicate a significant decline in Ne in recent generations. The estimated Ne values for the current generation were 121 and 130 for IRI-S1 and IRI-S2, respectively, while for the past 2,000 generations, they were 2,463 and 3,382. This declining trend raises concerns about reduced genetic diversity and increased risks associated with inbreeding, such as decreased disease resistance.The effective population size (Ne) has sharply decreased in recent generations, remaining lower than indigenus Iranian breeds (Ne = 150-200) but higher than some international purebred populations. While the inbreeding level in Iran is lower than Canadian and American Holsteins, it exhibits a faster upward trend. To preserve genetic diversity and control inbreeding, implementing genomic strategies—such as ROH-based mating management, enhancing sire diversity, and continuous Ne monitoring—is critical. These findings provide a foundation for optimizing breeding programs in Iran.

Keywords

Main Subjects


Barbato M, Orozco-terWengel P, Tapio M and Bruford MW, 2015. SNeP: a tool to estimate trends in recent effective population size trajectories using genome-wide SNP data. Frontiers in Genetics 6: 109.
Bjelland DW, Weigel KA, Vukasinovic N and Nkrumah JD, 2013. Evaluation of inbreeding and relationships among Holstein and Jersey cattle using pedigree and genomic information. Journal of Dairy Science 96(9): 5820-5832. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6510
Charlesworth D and Charlesworth B, 2009. Inbreeding effects on genome-wide LD. Genetics 123(1): 45-56.
Chhotaray S, Panigrahi M, Pal D, Ahmad SF, Bhanuprakash V, Kumar H and Singh RK, 2021. Genome-wide estimation of inbreeding coefficient, effective population size and haplotype blocks in Vrindavani crossbred cattle strain of India. Biological Rhythm Research 52(5): 666-679.
Cho CI, Lee JH and Lee DH, 2012. Estimation of Linkage Disequilibrium and Effective Population Size using Whole Genome Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in Hanwoo. Journal of Life Science 22(3): 366-372.
Dadar M, Mahyari SA, Rokouei M and Edriss MA, 2014. Rates of inbreeding and genetic diversity in Iranian Holstein cattle. Animal Science Journal 85: 888-894.
Dlamini NM, Dzomba EF, Magawana M, Ngcamu S and Muchadeyi FC, 2022. Linkage disequilibrium, haplotype block structures, effective population size and genome-wide signatures of selection of two conservation herds of the South African Nguni cattle. Animals 12(16): 2133.
Doekes HP, Veerkamp RF, Bijma P, de Jong G, Hiemstra SJ and Windig JJ, 2019. Inbreeding depression due to recent and ancient inbreeding in Dutch Holstein–Friesian dairy cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 51: 1-16.
Doekes HP, Veerkamp RF, Bijma P, Hiemstra SJ and Windig JJ, 2018. Trends in genome-wide and region-specific genetic diversity in the Dutch-Flemish Holstein–Friesian breeding program from 1986 to 2015. Genetics Selection Evolution 50: 1-16.
Doublet AC, Croiseau P, Fritz S, Michenet A, Hozé C, Danchin-Burge C, ... and Restoux G, 2019. The impact of genomic selection on genetic diversity and genetic gain in three French dairy cattle breeds. Genetics Selection Evolution 51: 1-13.
Eriksson S, Strandberg E and Johansson AM, 2023. Changes in genomic inbreeding and diversity over half a century in Swedish Red and Swedish Holstein dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 140: 295-303.
Fathi F, Khazaei HR, and Zare A, 2021. Evaluation of genetic diversity in local cattle breeds of Iran. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 138(5): 523-530.
Flury C, Tapio M, Sonstegard T, Drögemüller C, Leeb T, Simianer H, ... and Rieder S, 2010. Effective population size of an indigenous Swiss cattle breed estimated from linkage disequilibrium. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 127(5): 339-347.
Ghoreishifar SM, Moradi-Shahrbabak H, Fallahi MH, Jalil Sarghale A, Moradi-Shahrbabak M, Abdollahi-Arpanahi R and Khansefid M, 2020. Genomic measures of inbreeding coefficients and genome-wide scan for runs of homozygosity islands in Iranian river buffalo, Bubalus bubalis. BMC Genetics 21: 1-12.
Gutiérrez-Reinoso MA, Aponte PM and García-Herreros M, 2022. A review of inbreeding depression in dairy cattle: current status, emerging control strategies, and future prospects. Journal of Dairy Research 89(1): 3-12.
Hayes BJ, Visscher PM, McPartlan HC and Goddard ME, 2003. Novel multilocus measure of linkage disequilibrium to estimate past effective population size. Genome Research 13(4): 635-643.
Hillestad B, Woolliams JA, Boison SA, Grove H, Meuwissen T, Våge DI and Klemetsdal G, 2017. Detection of runs of homozygosity in Norwegian Red: Density, criteria and genotyping quality control. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A—Animal Science 67(3-4): 107-116.
Karlsson A, et al., 2007. Inbreeding and genetic diversity in Swedish dairy cattle populations. Journal of Dairy Science 90(11): 4995-5006. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2007-0479
Kearney JF, Wall E, Villanueva B and Coffey MP, 2004. Inbreeding Trends and Application of Optimized Selection in the UK Holstein Population. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 3503-3509.
Leroy G, Mary-Huard T, Verrier E, Danvy S, Charvolin E and Danchin-Burge C, 2013. Methods to estimate effective population size using pedigree data: Examples in dog, sheep, cattle and horse. Genetics Selection Evolution 45: 1-10.
Liu Z and Goddard ME, 2019. Genomic selection and accuracy of inbreeding estimation in Holstein cattle. Animal.
Makanjuola BO, Miglior F, Abdalla EA, Maltecca C, Schenkel FS and Baes CF, 2020. Effect of genomic selection on rate of inbreeding and coancestry and effective population size of Holstein and Jersey cattle populations. Journal of Dairy Science 103(6): 5183-5199.
Mastrangelo E, Giosuè V, Mazzocchi A, and Fabbri C, 2016. Inbreeding and genetic diversity in four native Italian cattle breeds. Animal 10(6): 1015-1023
Mehrban H, Lee DH, Moradi MH, Il Cho C and Naserkheil M, 2017. Estimation of population structure and genetic parameters in Iranian Holstein cattle using high-density SNP data. Journal of Animal Science 95(5): 1830-1838. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2016.1182
Meuwissen T, 2009. Genetic management of small populations: A review. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Science 59(2): 71-79.
Mohammadi H, Rafat A, Moradi Shahrebabak H, Shodja J and Moradi MH, 2018. Estimation of genomic inbreeding coefficient and effective population size in Zandi sheep breed using density SNP markers (50K SNPChip). Animal Sciences Journal 31(119): 129-142.
Mokhber M, Moradi Shahre Babak M, Sadeghi M, Moradi Shahrbabak H and Rahmani-Nia J, 2019a. Estimation of effective population size of Iranian water buffalo by genomic data. Iranian Journal of Animal Science 50(3): 197-205.
Mokhber M, Shahrbabak MM, Sadeghi M, Shahrbabak HM, Stella A, Nicolzzi E and Williams JL, 2019b. Study of whole genome linkage disequilibrium patterns of Iranian water buffalo breeds using the Axiom Buffalo Genotyping 90K Array. PLoS One 14(5): e0217687.
Nie C, et al., 2019. Genetic diversity and population structure of indigenous chicken breeds in China: implications for their conservation. Poultry Science 98(4): 1841-1850. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey609
O'Brien AM, Smith DR and Gollnick NS, 2014. Genetic structure of Holstein cattle in North America. Genetics Selection Evolution 46: 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-46-19
Ozerov MY, Vasemägi A, Wennevik V, Diaz-Fernandez R, Kent MP and Primmer CR, 2013. Finding markers that make a difference
Peripolli E, Stafuzza NB, Munari DP, Lima ALF, Irgang R, Machado MA and da Silva, MVGB, 2018. Assessment of runs of homozygosity islands and estimates of genomic inbreeding in Gyr (Bos indicus) dairy cattle. BMC Genomics 19(1):1-13.
Possingham HP, McCarthy MA, and Lindenmayer DB, 2024. Population viability analysis. 2nd Edn. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 210–219.
Purcell S, Neale B, Todd-Brown K, Thomas L, Ferreira MAR, Bender D, Maller J, Sklar P, de Bakker PIW, Daly MJ, and Sham PC, 2007. PLINK: a toolset for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analysis. American Journal of Human Genetics 81: 559–575.
Rahimmadar S, Ghaffari M, Mokhber M, and Williams JL, 2021. Linkage disequilibrium and effective population size of buffalo populations of Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, and Egypt using a medium density SNP array. Frontiers in Genetics 12: 608186.
Rodríguez-Ramilo ST, Fernández J, Toro MA, Hernández D, and Villanueva B, 2015. Genome-wide estimates of coancestry, inbreeding, and effective population size in the Spanish Holstein population. PLoS One 10(4): e0124157.
Rokouei M, Baghery N, and Ramezani S, 2010. Estimation of inbreeding and effective population size in Iranian Holstein cattle using pedigree data. Journal of Animal Science 88(10): 3256-3264.
Sarviaho K, Uimari P, and Martikainen K, 2023. Estimating inbreeding rate and effective population size in the Finnish Ayrshire population in the era of genomic selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 140(3): 343-353.
Seo Y, et al., 2018. Genetic diversity and population structure of Korean native chicken populations using microsatellite markers. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 31(3): 360-366. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0580
VanRaden PM, Olson KM, Wiggans GR, and Cole JB, 2011. Genomic inbreeding and relationships among Holsteins, Jerseys, and Brown Swiss. Journal of Dairy Science 94(11): 5673-5682. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2011-4505
Villa-Angulo R, Lopes MS, and Silva G, 2009. Estimation of effective population size in livestock populations using molecular markers. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 126(3): 139-145.
Vostry L, Kott T, Saska P, and Vejrazka M, 2023. Genetic diversity and inbreeding in Holstein-Friesian cattle in the Czech Republic. Czech Journal of Animal Science 68(2): 47-56.
Wang J, 2005. Estimation of effective population sizes from data on genetic markers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360(1459): 1395-1409.
Weigel KA, 2001. Controlling inbreeding in modern breeding programs. Journal of Dairy Science 84(1): 177–184. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)74472-7
Yang J, Lee SH, Goddard ME, and Visscher PM, 2011. GCTA: a tool for genome-wide complex trait analysis. The American Journal of Human Genetics 88(1): 76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2010.11.011
Zamani P, et al., 2018. Genetic diversity assessment in Iranian native cattle breeds using microsatellite markers. Small Ruminant Research 166: 47-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2018.06.003
Zhang J, Nie C, Li X, Ning Z, Chen Y, Jia Y, and Qu L, 2020. Genome-wide population genetic analysis of commercial, indigenous, game, and wild chickens using 600K SNP microarray data. Frontiers in Genetics 11: 543294.