Microsatellite markers for paternity testing of crossbred sheep populations

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pedigree information and phenotypic records are the key features in animal genetics and breeding. OBJECTIVES: This study was aimed to investigate and verify pedigree relations among 32 crossbred individuals who were genotyped for five microsatellite as one multiplex PCR set. METHODS: Pedigree relationships in a crossbred population of lambs reared in Tabriz University, Khalatpoushan research station was studied in which four rams were genotyped with 28 progenies. Four sires and 28 offspring were analyzed. Descriptive statistics of molecular raw data using a combination of software POPGENE and power indicator diagnosis was calculated using the software CERVUS. RESULTS: The results show that the candidate used microsatellite loci showed high levels of genetic diversity and polymorphism. In fact make such an observation precondition for the continuation of the analysis that follows is based on parentage tests.  Also, the combined probability of exclusion values obtained per all loci in both parentage and identification, analysis was 0.99 that indicate the high efficiency of study marker set for parentage and identification test in this population.As results this study showed incorrect pedigree in one individual of 28 ones with known parental relations.CONCLUSIONS:In conclusion, based on observed outputs, microsatellite markers seems could be powerful tools for tracing Mendelian allele from parents to offspring for evaluation of pedigrees accuracy.

References

امیری نیا، س1389. بررسی ساختار ژنتیکی گاومیش­های بومی ایران با استفاده از  نشانگرهای ریز ماهواره . طرح تحقیقات موسسه تحقیقات علوم دامی کشور.
وطن خواه م، مرادی شهر بابک م، نجاتی جوارمی ا، میرائی آشتیانی ر و واعظ ترشیزی ر، 1390.  مروری بر اصلاح نژاد گوسفند در ایران. اولین کنگرۀ علوم دامی و آبزیان کشور، دانشگاه تهران.
Banos G, Wiggans GR and Powell RL, 2001. Impact of Paternity Errors in Cow Identification on Genetic Evaluations and International Comparisons. Journal Dairy Science 84: 2523–2529 .
Barnett N, Purvis I, Van Hest B and Franklin I, 1999. The accuracy of current dam pedigree recording strategies employed by stud Merino breeders. In: Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics. Mandurah, Western Australia, July 4–7, 13: 373–376.
Baron E E, Martinez ML, Verneque RS and Coutinho LL, 2002. Parentage testing and effect of misidentification on the estimation of breeding value in Gir cattle. Genetics and Molecular Biology 25: 389-394.
Bhuyan DK, Sangwan ML, GoleVC and Sethi RK, 2010. Studies on DNAfingerprinting in Murrah buffaloes using microsatellite markers. Indian Journal Biotechnology 9: 367-370.
Christensen LG, Madsen P and Petersen J, 1982. The influence of incorrect sireidentification on the estimate of genetic parameters and breeding values. P. 200-208. World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production Publications. 1982.Madrid. Spain.
DeNise S, Johnston E, Halverson J and Edwards J,Marshall K,  Rosenfeld  D, McKenna S and Sharp T, 2004. Power of exclusion for parentage verification and probability of match for identity in American kennel club breeds using 17 canine microsatellite markers. Animal Genetics 35: 14–17.
Dodds KG, ML Tate and JA Sise, 2005. Genetic evaluation using parentage information from genetic markers. Journal of Animal Science 83: 2271-2279.
Geldermann H, Pieper U and Weber WE, 1986. Effect of Misidentification on theEstimation of Breeding Value and Heritability in Cattle. Journal of Animal Science 63:1759-1768.
Henderson CR, 1975. Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 31:423-447.
Jakabova D and Trandzik J, 2002. Effectiveness of six highly polymorphic microsatellite markers in resolving paternity cases in Thoroughbred horses in Slovakia. Czech Journal of Animal Science 47 : 497-501.
Jamieson A, 1994. The effectiveness of using co-dominant polymorphic allelic seriesfor (1) checking pedigrees and (2) distinguishing full-sib pair members. Animal Genetics 1:37:44.
Jamieson A and Taylor SCS, 1997. Comparison of three probability formulae forparentage exclusion. Animal Genetics 28:397–400.
Leroy G, Danchin-Burge C, Palhiere I, Baumung R and Fritz S, 2011. An ABC estimate of pedigree error rates: application in dog, sheep and cattle breeds. Animal Genetics 43, 309–314.
Luikart G, Biju-Duval MP, Ertugrul Y, Zagdsuren C, Maudet C and Taberlet P, 1999. Power of 22 microsatellite markers in fluorescent multiplexes for parentage testing in goats (Capra hircus). Animal Genetics 30: 431-438.
Marklund S, Ellegren H, Eriksson S, Sandberg K and Andersson L, 1994. Parentage testing and linkage analysis in the horse using a set of highly polymorphic microsatellites. Animal Genetics 25: 19-23.
Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk L and Pemberton JM, 1998. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Molecular Ecology 7: 639-655.
Mrode RA, 1996. Linear Models for the Prediction of Animal Breeding Values. Biddles, Guildford, 184 pp. 3 Edition.
Pollak EJ, 2005. Application and impact of new genetic technologies on beef cattle breeding: a “real world” perspective. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 45: 739-748.
Rehout V, Hradecka E and Citek J 2006. Evaluation of parentage testing in the Czeck population of Holstein cattle. Czech Journal of Animal Science 12: 503-509.
Riojas-Valdes VM, Gomez-de-la-Fuente JC, Garza-Lozano JM, Gallardo-Blanco DC, Tellitu-Schutz JN, Wong-Gonzalez A, Davalos-Aranda G and Salinas-Melendez JA, 2009. Exclusion probabilities of 8 DNA microsatellites in 6 cattle breeds from Northeast Mexico. Journal Animal Veterinary Advence 8: 62-66.
Tozaki T, H Kakoi S Mashima KI Hirota, T Hasegawa N Ishida, N Miura NH Choi-Miura and M Tomita 2001.Population Study and Validation of Paternity Testing for Thoroughbred Horses by 15 microsatellite Loci. Journal Veterinary Medical Science 63:1191-1197.
Usha AP, Simpson SP and Williams JL 1994. Evaluation of microsatellite markers for parentage verification. In: Proceedings of the 24th ISAG Conference. Animal Genetics. 25:  41.
Van Eenennaam AL, Weaber RL, Drake DJ, Penedo MCT, Quaas RL, Garrick DJ and Pollak EJ, 2007. DNA-based paternity analysis and genetic evaluation in a large, commercial cattle ranch setting. Journal of Animal Science 85:3159-3169.
Van Vleck L D, 1970a. Misidentification in estimating the paternal sib correlation. Journal of Dairy Science S31469.
Van Vleck,L D, 1970b. Misidentification and sire evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 53: 1697.
Visscher PM, Woolliams JA, Smith D and Williams JL, 2002. Estimation of pedigree errors in the UK dairy population using microsatellite markers and the impact on selection. Journal of Dairy Science 85:2368-2375.
Yeh, Francis C, Rong-cai Yang and Tim Boyle, 1999. POPGENE Ver. 3.31. Microsoft Window-Based Freeware for Population Genetic Analysis.
 
 
Animal Science Research
Volume 26, Issue 2
September 2016
Pages 141-150

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 10 September 2016
  • Accept Date: 10 September 2016

Share

How to cite

Statistics