Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T11:35:35.946Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Genomic inbreeding estimation in small populations: evaluation of runs of homozygosity in three local dairy cattle breeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2016

S. Mastrangelo*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento Scienze Agrarie e Forestali, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, 90128 Palermo, Italy
M. Tolone
Affiliation:
Dipartimento Scienze Agrarie e Forestali, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, 90128 Palermo, Italy
R. Di Gerlando
Affiliation:
Dipartimento Scienze Agrarie e Forestali, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, 90128 Palermo, Italy
L. Fontanesi
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Division of Animal Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy
M. T. Sardina
Affiliation:
Dipartimento Scienze Agrarie e Forestali, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, 90128 Palermo, Italy
B. Portolano
Affiliation:
Dipartimento Scienze Agrarie e Forestali, University of Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, 90128 Palermo, Italy

Abstract

In the local breeds with small population size, one of the most important problems is the increase of inbreeding coefficient (F). High levels of inbreeding lead to reduced genetic diversity and inbreeding depression. The availability of high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays has facilitated the quantification of F by genomic markers in farm animals. Runs of homozygosity (ROH) are contiguous lengths of homozygous genotypes and represent an estimate of the degree of autozygosity at genome-wide level. The current study aims to quantify the genomic F derived from ROH (FROH) in three local dairy cattle breeds. FROH values were compared with F estimated from the genomic relationship matrix (FGRM), based on the difference between observed v. expected number of homozygous genotypes (FHOM) and the genomic homozygosity of individual i (FMOL i). The molecular coancestry coefficient (fMOL ij) between individuals i and j was also estimated. Individuals of Cinisara (71), Modicana (72) and Reggiana (168) were genotyped with the 50K v2 Illumina BeadChip. Genotypes from 96 animals of Italian Holstein cattle breed were also included in the analysis. We used a definition of ROH as tracts of homozygous genotypes that were >4 Mb. Among breeds, 3661 ROH were identified. Modicana showed the highest mean number of ROH per individual and the highest value of FROH, whereas Reggiana showed the lowest ones. Differences among breeds existed for the ROH lengths. The individuals of Italian Holstein showed high number of short ROH segments, related to ancient consanguinity. Similar results showed the Reggiana with some extreme animals with segments covering 400 Mb and more of genome. Modicana and Cinisara showed similar results between them with the total length of ROH characterized by the presence of large segments. High correlation was found between FHOM and FROH ranged from 0.83 in Reggiana to 0.95 in Cinisara and Modicana. The correlations among FROH and other estimated F coefficients were generally lower ranged from 0.45 (FMOL iFROH) in Cinisara to 0.17 (FGRMFROH) in Modicana. On the basis of our results, recent inbreeding was observed in local breeds, considering that 16 Mb segments are expected to present inbreeding up to three generations ago. Our results showed the necessity of implementing conservation programs to control the rise of inbreeding and coancestry in the three Italian local dairy cattle breeds.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Implications

In the local breeds with small population size, one of the most important problems is the increase of inbreeding that leads to different negative effects as a reduction in phenotypic values. The current study aims to quantify the genomic inbreeding derived from runs of homozygosity (ROH) (F ROH) in three Italian local dairy cattle breeds. According to ROH results, recent inbreeding was well detected in the investigated local dairy cattle breeds. Our results showed the necessity of implementing conservation programs to preserve the local breeds in order to avoid further loss of genetic distinctiveness. Therefore, determining the occurrence of identical by descent segments in potential parents, thereby measuring their relatedness and coancestry, can be used to minimize the occurrence of long ROH in the offspring.

Introduction

Animal genetic resources must be preserved because of their contribution to human livelihood, now and in the future (Toro et al., Reference Toro, Meuwissen, Fernández, Shaat and Mäki-Tanila2011). Most local livestock breeds are the result of a particular adaptation to production systems environmentally conditioned, and in many cases no other breed could survive in the same habitat if the local breed goes extinct. In addition, such local populations might harbor specific genetic variants that are worth retaining and that might be used to recover the loss of genetic diversity that occurs in mainstream breeds because of very intensive selection on production traits (Fernández et al., Reference Fernández, Toro and Caballero2011). Apart from that, these populations represent local culture, history and tradition and are often linked to traditional products of farm animals (milk, meat, eggs, etc.).

Typically, local breeds are small populations and their size put them at risk of extinction. Consequently, the genetic diversity stored in each of them should be treated with great care and management strategies that insure the viability, and maintenance of the population should be implemented. Selection programs in local breeds with small population size are limited by the low number of animals (families) and by the need to control inbreeding (Fontanesi et al., Reference Fontanesi, Scotti, Samorè, Bagnato and Russo2015), which represent one of the most important problems. The individual inbreeding coefficient (F) is defined as the proportion of an individual’s genome that is autozygous, that has homozygous identical by descent (IBD) status, or equivalently the probability of a randomly sampled locus in the genome to be autozygous (Ferenčaković et al., Reference Ferenčaković, Hamzić, Gredler, Solberg, Klemetsdal, Curik and Sölkner2013a). The increase of F leads to different negative effects as reduction in phenotypic values for some traits, reduction of genetic variance, higher frequency of homozygous genotypes with the reduction of individual performance (inbreeding depression) and lower population viability (Ouborg et al., Reference Ouborg, Pertoldi, Loeschcke, Bijlsma and Hedrick2010). Therefore, to avoid inbreeding depression, an accurate and sensitive estimation of F is very important, especially in local breeds/populations. Traditionally, F is estimated on the basis of pedigree information but in most cases this is unavailable or inaccurate. Moreover, the probabilistic approach of pedigree analysis does not take into account the stochastic nature of recombination (McQuillan et al., Reference McQuillan, Leutenegger, Abdel-Rahman, Franklin, Pericic, Barac-Lauc, Smolej-Narancic, Janicijevic, Polasek, Tenesa, Macleod, Farrington, Rudan, Hayward, Vitart, Rudan, Wild, Dunlop, Wright, Campbell and Wilson2008). Recently, with the availability of high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays, F can be estimated accurately in absence of pedigree information (Allendorf et al., Reference Allendorf, Hohenlohe and Luikart2010). There are two categories of genomic inbreeding measures based on genome-wide SNPs. The first category is based on marker-by-marker estimates such as the diagonal elements of the genomic relationship matrix (GRM) (VanRaden et al., Reference VanRaden, Olson, Wiggans, Cole and Tooker2011), the canonical estimate based on excess SNP homozygosity in PLINK (Purcell et al., Reference Purcell, Neale, Todd-Brown, Thomas, Ferreira, Bender, Maller, Sklar, De Bakker, Daly and Sham2007) and molecular coancestry estimates (Caballero and Toro, Reference Caballero and Toro2002). The second one is based on runs of homozygosity (ROH) detection. ROH are contiguous lengths of homozygous genotypes that are present in an individual due to parents transmitting identical haplotypes to their offspring (Gibson et al., Reference Gibson, Morton and Collins2006). Nowadays, F estimated from ROH (F ROH) is considered to be the most powerful method of detecting inbreeding effects among several alternative estimates of inbreeding (Keller et al., Reference Keller, Visscher and Goddard2011). F ROH provided a good measure of individual genome-wide autozygosity and allows to distinguish between recent and ancient inbreeding (McQuillan et al., Reference McQuillan, Leutenegger, Abdel-Rahman, Franklin, Pericic, Barac-Lauc, Smolej-Narancic, Janicijevic, Polasek, Tenesa, Macleod, Farrington, Rudan, Hayward, Vitart, Rudan, Wild, Dunlop, Wright, Campbell and Wilson2008). Because recombination events interrupt long chromosome segments, long ROH (~10 Mb) arise as result of recent inbreeding (up to five generation ago), while shorter ROH (~1 Mb) can indicate more distant ancestral effect (up to 50 generation ago) such as breed founder effects (Howrigan et al., Reference Howrigan, Simonson and Keller2011). Therefore, estimate of F using ROH is particularly appealing as the number of generations of inbreeding and the history of recent selection events can be inferred from the extend and frequency of ROH regions (Purfield et al., Reference Purfield, Berry, McParland and Bradley2012). Although ROH from high-throughput genotyping analyses have been studied extensively in humans, these estimates are rare in cattle, particular in local breeds, and in other livestock species (Purfield et al., Reference Purfield, Berry, McParland and Bradley2012; Ferenčaković et al., Reference Ferenčaković, Hamzić, Gredler, Solberg, Klemetsdal, Curik and Sölkner2013a; Silió et al., Reference Silió, Rodríguez, Fernández, Barragán, Benítez, Óvilo and Fernández2013; Pertoldi et al., Reference Pertoldi, Purfield, Berg, Jensen, Bach, Vingborg and Kristensen2014).

The current study aims to quantify the genomic inbreeding derived from ROH in three economically important Italian local dairy cattle breeds, Cinisara, Modicana and Reggiana, characterized by the same breeding goals but different selection histories. Moreover, genotypes from Italian Holstein, the most important dairy cattle breed reared in Italy, were also included in these analyses in order to compare results among breeds.

Material and methods

Breeds, genotypes and quality control

A total of 407 individuals were used for the analyses. DNA samples belonged to four different cattle breeds: Cinisara (71), Modicana (72), Reggiana (168) and Italian Holstein (96). For these breeds pedigree data were not available. Sampling was carried out in several farms and individuals were selected on the basis of information supplied by the farmers to avoid, as much as possible, closely related animals. The Cinisara, Modicana and Reggiana are three economically important local breeds with small population size (number of reared animals <4000). Cinisara and Modicana are two cattle breeds well adapted to the harshness of Sicilian marginal mountain areas and their economic importance lies on the traditional production systems of two typical ‘pasta filata’ cheeses: Caciocavallo Palermitano and Ragusano PDO (Protected Designation of Origin), respectively. Recently, Mastrangelo et al. (Reference Mastrangelo, Saura, Tolone, Salces-Ortiz, Di Gerlando, Bertolini, Fontanesi, Sardina, Serrano and Portolano2014) reported the effective population size values estimated from rate of F per year (19 and 12) and from rate of coancestry (f) (four and eight individuals) in Cinisara and Modicana cattle breeds, respectively. Reggiana is a local cattle breed reared in the province of Reggio Emilia in Northern Italy specialized for the production of a niche brand of Parmigiano-Reggiano PDO cheese.

All animals were genotyped for 54 609 SNPs using Bovine SNP50K v2 BeadChip (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Data quality control was performed separately for each breed. We excluded all SNPs not assigned to a bos taurus chromosome (BTA) or assigned to chromosomes X and Y. Markers were filtered according to quality criteria that included: (i) call frequency (⩾0.95), (ii) minor allele frequency (MAF⩾0.01) and (iii) Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (P-value=0.001). SNPs that did not satisfy these quality criteria were excluded. Moreover, considering that high linkage disequilibrium (LD) can lead to detection of ROH that are not truly IBD, LD pruning was also performed before the ROH call to increase power, as suggested by Purcell et al. (Reference Purcell, Neale, Todd-Brown, Thomas, Ferreira, Bender, Maller, Sklar, De Bakker, Daly and Sham2007) and applied by several authors (Howrigan et al., Reference Howrigan, Simonson and Keller2011; Bjelland et al., Reference Bjelland, Weigel, Vukasinovic and Nkrumah2013). Therefore, unlinked SNPs were selected using -indep option of PLINK with the following parameters: 50 SNPs/window, a shift of five SNPs between windows and r 2 threshold of 0.5. A total of 38 937 SNPs in Cinisara, 32 179 SNPs in Modicana, 29 483 SNPs in Reggiana and 27 586 SNPs in Italian Holstein cattle breeds were retained after quality control and were used to estimate F ROH. The main difference for the number of SNPs used for each breed, in particular the highest number of SNPs used for Cinisara, was due to different values of LD among breeds. In fact, Cinisara showed the lowest value of LD and, therefore, the lowest number of excluded SNPs.

Run of homozygosity calling option

F ROH were calculated as the proportion of genome in ROH over the overall length of the genome covered by the involved SNPs (2 541 174 kb) using the PLINK whole-genome association analysis toolset (Purcell et al., Reference Purcell, Neale, Todd-Brown, Thomas, Ferreira, Bender, Maller, Sklar, De Bakker, Daly and Sham2007). The following criteria were used to define the ROH: (i) the minimum number of SNPs included in the ROH was fixed to 40; (ii) the minimum length that constituted the ROH was set to 4 Mb; (iii) two missing SNPs were allowed in the ROH; (iv) minimum density of one SNP every 100 kb; (v) maximum gap between consecutive SNPs of 1 Mb. Moreover, the number of allowed heterozygous SNPs was set to different values: from one to three. Mean F ROH values obtained allowing different numbers of heterozygous SNPs were compared within the same breed using paired t-tests. The mean number of ROH per individual per breed (MNROH), the average length of ROH (LROH) and the sum of all ROH segments per animal (SROH) were estimated. The distribution of SROH within breed was assessed using box plots. In addition, chromosomal (BTA) F ROH (F ROHBTA) values were also estimated for each breed, as F ROHBTA=LROHBTA/LBTA (Silió et al., Reference Silió, Rodríguez, Fernández, Barragán, Benítez, Óvilo and Fernández2013), in which LROHBTA is the total length of an individual’s ROH in each BTA and LBTA is the length of each chromosome covered by the involved SNPs (Supplementary Table S1). ROH were classified into three classes (4 to 8, 8 to 16 and >16 Mb) using the same nomenclature reported by other authors (Ferenčaković et al., Reference Ferenčaković, Hamzić, Gredler, Solberg, Klemetsdal, Curik and Sölkner2013a; Marras et al., Reference Marras, Gaspa, Sorbolini, Dimauro, Ajmone-Marsam, Valentini, Williams and Macciotta2014) except for two classes (<2 and 2 to 4 Mb), which were not considered in our study. The number and percentage of ROH within each ROH length category for breed were also determined.

Genomic inbreeding analyses

Alternative estimates of inbreeding and coancestry coefficients were also calculated. In particular: (1) the values of the diagonal elements of the GRM (F GRM) proposed by VanRaden et al. (Reference VanRaden, Olson, Wiggans, Cole and Tooker2011); (2) the genomic inbreeding coefficient based on the difference between observed v. expected number of homozygous genotypes (F HOM) using PLINK (Purcell et al., Reference Purcell, Neale, Todd-Brown, Thomas, Ferreira, Bender, Maller, Sklar, De Bakker, Daly and Sham2007); (3) the molecular coancestry coefficient (f MOLij ) between individuals i and j (Caballero and Toro, Reference Caballero and Toro2002); (4) the molecular inbreeding coefficient (F MOLi ) of individual i, calculated as F MOL i =2 f MOL ii −1 (f MOL ii is the molecular self-coancestry). Spearman’s rank correlation among different genomic inbreeding measures was calculated.

Effective population size

The effective population sizes (N e ) were calculated as N e =(1/4c)×(1/r 2−1) (Sved, Reference Sved1971) where r 2 (the squared correlation coefficient of allele frequencies at pair of loci) is the value of LD and c the genetic distance in Morgans between SNPs. Physical distances between SNP pairs were converted to genetic distances with the assumption of 1 cM~1 Mb. Each genetic distance c corresponds to a value of t generation in the past, and this value was calculated as t=1/(2c), assuming a linear population growth (Hayes et al., Reference Hayes, Visscher, McPartlan and Goddard2003). All pairwise combinations of SNPs were estimated using LD plot function in Haploview v 4.2 software (Barrett et al., Reference Barrett, Fry, Maller and Daly2005). For this analysis, markers were filtered according to quality criteria reported above, except for LD pruning; in fact N e estimates could be biased if calculated from LD pruned SNPs. A total of 44 875 SNPs in Cinisara, 42 687 SNPs in Modicana, 35 720 SNPs in Reggiana and 41 596 SNPs in Italian Holstein cattle breeds were used. For each chromosome, pairwise r 2 was calculated for SNPs between 0 and 50 Mb apart. To visualize the LD pattern per chromosome, r 2 values were stacked and plotted as a function of inter-marker distance categories.

Results and discussion

The main aim of this study was to analyze estimates of inbreeding derived from ROH in three important Italian local cattle breeds. Moreover, genotypes from Italian Holstein were also included in these analyses in order to compare results among breeds.

We used a definition of ROH as tracts of homozygous genotypes that were >4 Mb in length identified with a minimum number of 40 SNPs. In fact, the density of SNP panel used to generate the data for ROH identification is an important factor that strongly affects autozygosity estimates. Ferenčaković et al. (Reference Ferenčaković, Solkner and Curik2013b) showed that the 50K panel revealed an abundance of small segments and overestimated the numbers of segments 1 to 4 Mb long, suggesting that it is not sensitive enough for the precise determination of small segments. We estimated mean F ROH>4 Mb values allowing one, two and three heterozygous SNPs and paired t-tests were conducted within each cattle breed. In fact, considering that genotyping errors in SNP chip data do occur, it seems reasonable to allow some heterozygous calls, especially for long segments that are more frequent in cattle populations (Ferenčaković et al., Reference Ferenčaković, Solkner and Curik2013b) than in human species (Kirin et al., Reference Kirin, McQuillan, Franklin, Campbell, McKeigue and Wilson2010). The results showed different values depending on whether one, two and three heterozygous genotypes were allowed (Table 1). The differences between F ROH estimated using one and two heterozygous SNPs were very small in all breeds and did not have important effects on estimates of inbreeding levels, with the highest value of 0.003 units in Italian Holstein and Modicana (Table 1). The highest different values of F ROH were observed when one and three heterozygous SNPs were compared, with the highest value of 0.007 units for the same above mentioned breeds. Ferenčaković et al. (Reference Ferenčaković, Solkner and Curik2013b) suggested that for long ROH (which can have >5000 to 6000 SNPs) some heterozygous calls must be allowed, especially with high-density chip, but at the same time, the number of allowable heterozygous calls should be limited. In fact, the same authors showed that allowing certain minimum numbers of heterozygous SNPs leads to inaccurate ROH calls, in particular at the ends of ROH. Marras et al. (Reference Marras, Gaspa, Sorbolini, Dimauro, Ajmone-Marsam, Valentini, Williams and Macciotta2014), in a study of ROH using medium-density chip, reported that when heterozygous SNPs were allowed, the number of longer ROH increased dramatically, and preferred not to use them in the ROH. Therefore, considering that in our study medium-density SNP data were used, and that the longest segment was below 2000 SNPs, only one heterozygous SNP was allowed in the ROH in order to avoid underestimation of long ROH.

Table 1 Comparison of inbreeding derived from runs of homozygosity (F ROH) values obtained by allowing different numbers of heterozygous (het) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)

a,b,cDifferent letters indicate statistical significance within the same breed (P<0.001, paired t-test).

We analyzed animals from four Italian cattle breeds with different inbreeding background and selection histories. In particular, Cinisara and Modicana are two ancient Sicilian breeds that are not subject to breeding programs (Mastrangelo et al., Reference Mastrangelo, Saura, Tolone, Salces-Ortiz, Di Gerlando, Bertolini, Fontanesi, Sardina, Serrano and Portolano2014), whereas Reggiana is characterized by limited selection program. For this breed, only few studies have been carried out so far with the aim to identify associations with production traits that might be useful to refine selection and conservation programs (Fontanesi et al., Reference Fontanesi, Scotti, Samorè, Bagnato and Russo2015). Holstein dairy cattle has dominated the milk production industry over decades. Intense and accurate artificial selection practiced over many years has resulted in high rates of genetic gain; however, the high rates of gain have been accompanied by large increase of inbreeding (Rodríguez-Ramilo et al., Reference Rodríguez-Ramilo, Fernández, Toro, Hernández and Villanueva2015).

A total of 3661 ROH were identified among the four breeds. All individuals of Italian Holstein displayed at least two ROH, whereas in the local breeds there were individuals that did not show ROH >4 Mb. In all breeds, except for Reggiana, the number of ROH per chromosome was greater in BTA1 and BTA2, and tended to decrease with chromosome length. The maximum size of ROH was 112.65 Mb and was found on BTA8 in Cinisara breed. Kim et al. (Reference Kim, Cole, Huson, Wiggans, Van Tassell, Crooker, Liu, Da and Sonstegard2013) showed similar results in Holstein cow with the maximum size of ROH of 87.13 Mb on BTA8. Modicana and Italian Holstein breeds showed the longest ROH on BTA9 (89.61 and 70.11 Mb, respectively), whereas the Reggiana breed on BTA4 (102.18 Mb). Modicana breed showed the highest MNROH per individual and the highest value of F ROH>4 Mb (11.03 and 0.055, respectively), whereas Reggiana breed showed the lowest ones (7.15 and 0.035, respectively) (Table 2). LROH values indicated low variation among the four breeds showing that this value is not a good descriptor of ROH as reported by other authors (Marras et al., Reference Marras, Gaspa, Sorbolini, Dimauro, Ajmone-Marsam, Valentini, Williams and Macciotta2014). The comparison of ROH is not straightforward since different studies used different criteria in particular for the minimum length of ROH and the minimum number of SNPs involved in ROH. Furthermore, the number of SNPs, density of the SNP chip and selection criteria for SNPs used to determine the genomic inbreeding can have a huge effect on these values (Bjelland et al., Reference Bjelland, Weigel, Vukasinovic and Nkrumah2013). Ferenčaković et al. (Reference Ferenčaković, Hamzić, Gredler, Solberg, Klemetsdal, Curik and Sölkner2013a) found higher number of ROH in four analyzed cattle breeds probably because of the shorter length considered to define the ROH (>1 Mb). Similar results of F ROH>4 Mb were reported by Ferenčaković et al. (Reference Ferenčaković, Solkner and Curik2013b) using a 50K panel for Pinzgauer (0.037) and Tyrol Grey (0.042) local cattle breeds, and by Marras et al. (Reference Marras, Gaspa, Sorbolini, Dimauro, Ajmone-Marsam, Valentini, Williams and Macciotta2014) in Marchigiana (0.046) beef cattle breed. Differences among breeds existed also for the ROH length. Figure 1 showed the total number of ROH and the total lengths of genome in ROH for each individual of the four breeds. Considerable differences among animals and breeds have been found. The individuals of Italian Holstein breed showed high number of short ROH segments. Similar results were showed for Reggiana breed with some extreme animals with segments covering 400 Mb and more of genome, and with a number of ROH per individual >25. The Sicilian breeds showed analogous results between them with the total length of ROH characterized by the presence of large segments. SROH varied among breeds (Figure 2). The highest average SROH was 132 Mb in Cinisara, whereas the lowest one was 90 Mb in Reggiana. Considering the median values, the highest one was found in Italian Holstein, whereas the lowest one was found in Reggiana. The average reported SROH values were lower than the ones reported in other studies (Purfield et al., Reference Purfield, Berry, McParland and Bradley2012; Ferenčaković et al., Reference Ferenčaković, Hamzić, Gredler, Solberg, Klemetsdal, Curik and Sölkner2013a). The three most homozygous animals present in our dataset were from Cinisara (676.9 Mb), Modicana (681.2 Mb) and Reggiana (725.2 Mb) with almost a quarter of their genome classified as ROH. In all breeds, most ROH segment coverage was in the shorter length categories (4 to 8 Mb), in particular Modicana (51%) and Italian Holstein (50%) (Table 3). In fact, as reported in studies of ROH in human (Kirin et al., Reference Kirin, McQuillan, Franklin, Campbell, McKeigue and Wilson2010) and cattle populations (Ferenčaković et al., Reference Ferenčaković, Hamzić, Gredler, Solberg, Klemetsdal, Curik and Sölkner2013a; Marras et al., Reference Marras, Gaspa, Sorbolini, Dimauro, Ajmone-Marsam, Valentini, Williams and Macciotta2014) longer ROH were found less frequently than shorter ones. The expected length of autozygous segments that are IBD follows an exponential distribution with mean equal to 1/2g Morgans, where g is the number of generations since the common ancestor (Howrigan et al., Reference Howrigan, Simonson and Keller2011). Therefore, considering that 16 Mb segments are expected to present inbreeding up to three generations ago, recent inbreeding was observed in the studied local breeds due to the higher frequencies of ROH in this length category (Table 3), whereas the short ROH segments observed in Italian Holstein (4 Mb) was related to more ancient inbreeding, occurring 12.5 generation ago (about 75 years ago). However, the findings suggest that the local breeds experienced both recent and ancient inbreeding events, since that some animals lacked such long ROH, whereas other showed long segments. The results also indicated that these breeds have not recently been extensively crossed with other ones otherwise the long ROH would have broken down.

Figure 1 Relationship between the total number of runs of homozygosity (ROH) >4 Mb and the total length (kb) of genome in such ROH for individuals from each breed. Each dot represents an individual.

Figure 2 Box plots of within-breed average and median sum of all ROH segments per individual. ROH=runs of homozygosity; CIN=Cinisara; MOD=Modicana; HOL=Holstein; REG=Reggiana.

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for runs of homozygosity (ROH) for each cattle breed

MNROH=mean number of ROH per individual with minimum and maximum value in brackets; F ROH>4 Mb=mean ROH-based inbreeding coefficient with standard deviation and minimum and maximum value in brackets; LROH=average length of ROH in Mb with minimum and maximum value in brackets; SNPs=minimum and maximum number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) involved in ROH.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the number and the frequency distribution of runs of homozygosity (ROH) in different ROH length categories (Mb) for each cattle breed

n ROH=number of ROH; Freq=relative frequency of ROH on different ROH length categories.

One of the main advantages of genomic coefficients is the availability of chromosomal inbreeding coefficients. F ROHBTA estimates were reported in Figure 3. In general, for each breed, the F ROHBTA values followed the same pattern as those computed for the whole genome. Higher F ROHBTA values were found on BTA28 (for Cinisara), BTA16 (Modicana), BTA26 (Italian Holstein) and BTA23 (Reggiana), whereas for all breeds the lowest one was found in BTA5. In a previous study on Italian Holstein, Gaspa et al. (Reference Gaspa, Marras, Sorbolini, Ajmone Marsan, Williams, Valentini, Dimauro and Macciotta2014) identified an interesting region of ~2 Mb on BTA26 that harbors some genes involved in the metabolism of mammary gland. Similar values were reported by Marras et al. (Reference Marras, Gaspa, Sorbolini, Dimauro, Ajmone-Marsam, Valentini, Williams and Macciotta2014) in Italian Simmental and local Marchigiana cattle breeds.

Figure 3 Distribution of inbreeding coefficient estimates for each chromosome (F ROHBTA) calculated as the proportion of BTA in ROH over the length of the BTA covered by the involved SNPs. ROH=runs of homozygosity; CIN=Cinisara; MOD=Modicana; HOL=Holstein; REG=Reggiana.

In the absence of pedigree information, the origin of ROH could also be explained using other indicators, as LD and N e . In fact, another explanation for ROH is the lack of recombination in a specific region. Pairwise r 2 values were averaged over all autosomes and plotted as a function of genomic distance between markers (Figure 4). The highest level of r 2 was found in Italian Holstein, whereas the lowest one in Cinisara. The extent of LD was used to estimate current and past N e that is an important parameter for the assessment of genetic diversity and helps to explain how population evolved (Tenesa et al., Reference Tenesa, Navarro, Hayes, Duffy, Clarke, Goddard and Visscher2007). In the four breeds, the highest N e (estimated five generation ago) was observed in Cinisara (94.58), whereas the lowest one was observed in Modicana (59.84) (Table 4). For Sicilian breeds, the N e estimates based on LD were substantially higher than those reported in a previous study (Mastrangelo et al., Reference Mastrangelo, Saura, Tolone, Salces-Ortiz, Di Gerlando, Bertolini, Fontanesi, Sardina, Serrano and Portolano2014) calculated from the rates of F and f. Different estimates for N e were also reported in Iberian pigs with complete and accurate pedigree records, where N e calculated from the rates of molecular F and f were 17 and 10, respectively (Saura et al., Reference Saura, Fernández, Rodríguez, Toro, Barragán, Fernández and Villanueva2013), whereas N e estimate using information from LD and recombination rate was 36 (Saura et al., Reference Saura, Tenesa, Woolliams, Fernández and Villanueva2014). Therefore, the discrepancies were due to the different used methods. In fact, as for the pedigree-based methods, the different molecular methods may give divergent results depending on the sampling strategy or the parameters used to compute N e (Leroy et al., Reference Leroy, Mary-Huard, Verrier, Danvy, Charvolin and Danchin-Burge2013). These methods differ also in terms of time scale investigated and the amount of available information. The rates of F and f only give estimates of N e based on limited time period, and taking into account the year of birth of individuals (that in local breeds as Cinisara and Modicana may be incorrect) may result in biased estimates. LD-based method uses more information, leads to an accurate estimate (Waples and Do, Reference Waples and England2010; Waples and England, Reference Waples and Do2011; Saura et al., Reference Saura, Woolliams, Tenesa, Fernández and Villanueva2015), with the possibility of investigating the change of N e over time, as LD between loci at a specific recombination distance reflects the ancestral N e 1/2c generations ago (Hayes et al., Reference Hayes, Visscher, McPartlan and Goddard2003), if the population grows linearly over time. However, it should be underlined that some parameters, as density and frequency of SNP pairs and distribution of MAF, affect the estimations of LD (Ober et al., Reference Ober, Malinowski, Schlather and Simianer2013) and then of N e . Moreover, the methods used to convert physical distances between SNP pairs to genetic distance may result in different estimated N e values (García-Gámez et al., Reference García-Gámez, Sahana, Gutiérrez-Gil and Arranz2012). Estimate of N e obtained in this study for Italian Holstein was closed to those previously published for other Holstein population (Rodríguez-Ramilo et al., Reference Rodríguez-Ramilo, Fernández, Toro, Hernández and Villanueva2015). In general, the breed with the highest average inbreeding coefficient had the lowest N e , as in Modicana breed. Moreover, LD and N e were influenced by the recent history of selection. In fact, the strong selection for milk production and artificial insemination in Holstein and the highest inbreeding in Modicana have led to a reduction in the N e .

Figure 4 Linkage disequilibrium across the genome as a function of genomic distance (Mb). CIN=Cinisara; MOD=Modicana; HOL=Holstein; REG=Reggiana.

Table 4 Effective population size (Ne) estimated from linkage disequilibrium values for each cattle breed

In Table 5 the average inbreeding and coancestry molecular coefficients estimated using different approaches were reported. Cinisara presented the highest values for all F coefficients (F GRM, F HOM and F MOL i ); Modicana showed the lowest values for F GRM and F HOM and the highest value for f MOL ij (Table 5). Italian Holstein breed showed the lowest values of f MOL ij and F MOL i . Estimates of inbreeding coefficients depend on the used methods. In fact, F coefficients estimated using allele frequencies (F HOM and F GRM) showed considerable variation among breeds respect to F ROH and F MOL i . In all breeds, f MOL ij and F MOL i values were much higher than the other coefficients because these two methods (that are obtained on a SNP-by-SNP basis) do not discriminate alleles that are IBD or identical by status (IBS) (Rodríguez-Ramilo et al., Reference Rodríguez-Ramilo, Fernández, Toro, Hernández and Villanueva2015). However, these estimates computed from SNP array data were strongly correlated with genealogical estimates, represent a useful alternative to genealogical information for measuring and maintaining genetic diversity and are very accurate in predicting genealogical coancestry (Gómez-Romano et al., Reference Gómez-Romano, Villanueva, de Cara and Fernández2013; Saura et al., Reference Saura, Fernández, Rodríguez, Toro, Barragán, Fernández and Villanueva2013). Spearman’s rank correlation between F ROH and the other genomic inbreeding estimated measures was calculated (Table 6). High correlation was found between F HOM and F ROH ranged from 0.83 in Reggiana to 0.95 in Cinisara and Modicana. The correlations among F ROH and other inbreeding estimates (F GRM, F HOM and F MOL i ) were generally lower ranged from 0.45 (F MOL i,F ROH) in Cinisara to 0.17 (F GRMF ROH) in Modicana (Table 6). High correlation between F HOM and F ROH (0.84) was also reported by Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Young, Wang, Sun, Wolc and Dekkers2014) in a study on pig in which ROH >5 Mb after LD pruning were detected, whereas really different values (0.06, 0.35 and 0.61) were reported by Zhang et al. (Reference Zhang, Calus, Guldbrandtsen, Lund and Sahana2015) in three cattle breeds. Ferenčaković et al. (Reference Ferenčaković, Hamzić, Gredler, Solberg, Klemetsdal, Curik and Sölkner2013a) reported high correlation between F HOM and F ROH based on short segments (ROH >1 and >2 Mb). The poor correlation reported in our study between F GRM and F ROH was according to other studies (Marras et al., Reference Marras, Gaspa, Sorbolini, Dimauro, Ajmone-Marsam, Valentini, Williams and Macciotta2014; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Calus, Guldbrandtsen, Lund and Sahana2015). Zavarez et al. (Reference Zavarez, Utsunomiya, Carmo, Neves, Carvalheiro, Ferenčaković, O’Brien, Curik, Cole, Van Tassell, da Silva, Sonstegard, Sölkner and Garcia2015) in a study on autozygosity using high-density SNPs, showed that the correlation between F GRM and F ROH decreased from 0.74 per ROH >0.5 Mb to 0.41 per ROH >16 Mb, probably due to the properties of the G matrix which is based on individual loci, whereas F ROH is based on chromosomal segments. A higher correlation between F MOL i and F ROH were reported by Gómez-Romano et al. (2014) in Austrian Brown Swiss cattle (0.76) and Rodríguez-Ramilo et al. (Reference Rodríguez-Ramilo, Fernández, Toro, Hernández and Villanueva2015) in Spanish Holstein breed (0.88). However, while the alternative used estimates of inbreeding and coancestry coefficients could not distinguish between recent and ancient inbreeding, F ROH provided the direct estimated level of autozygosity in the current populations and allowed us to detect recent inbreeding (up to three generations ago) in the local cattle breeds, in particular for Cinisara and Modicana ones. In fact, in the Sicilian farming system, natural mating is the common practice for local breeds, and the exchange of animal among flocks is quite unusual, with an increase of inbreeding within the population due to uncontrolled mating of related individuals (Mastrangelo et al., Reference Mastrangelo, Sardina, Riggio and Portolano2012). As pedigree data were unavailable for animals in this study, comparison of genomic and pedigree inbreeding coefficients was not possible. However, the strong correlation between the pedigree inbreeding coefficient and the sum of ROH reported by several authors (Purfield et al., Reference Purfield, Berry, McParland and Bradley2012; Ferenčaković et al., Reference Ferenčaković, Solkner and Curik2013b) suggests that in absence of animal’s pedigree data, the extent of a genome under ROH may be used to infer aspects of recent population history even from relatively few samples. It should be underlined that the occurrence of ROH in an individual may be the result of inbreeding events but they may also be present in outbreed populations as result of other phenomena. In fact, an increased frequency of common extended haplotypes can also be a consequence of selection pressure on genomic regions involved in functional roles (Gaspa et al., Reference Gaspa, Marras, Sorbolini, Ajmone Marsan, Williams, Valentini, Dimauro and Macciotta2014), but as reported above, Sicilian cattle breeds are not subject to selection programs, therefore the presence of ROH in these two breeds was only due to inbreeding effect. Moreover, recent studies showed that the genomic estimates of inbreeding can be used to calculate the effects of inbreeding on performance and fitness traits. Pryce et al. (Reference Pryce, Haile-Mariam, Goddard and Hayes2014), in a study on the identification of genomic regions associated with inbreeding depression in Holstein cattle breed, showed that long ROH (>60 SNPs or 3.5 Mb), as those identified in our breeds, were associated with a reduction in milk yield, independently of the proportion of the genome that was homozygous. Therefore, our results showed the necessity of implementing conservation programs to preserve the local breeds in order to avoid further loss of genetic distinctiveness.

Table 5 Estimated mean of genomic inbreeding and coancestry coefficients for each cattle breed

F GRM=inbreeding coefficient based on genomic relationship matrix; F HOM=inbreeding coefficient based on the difference between observed v. expected number of homozygous genotypes; F MOL i =molecular inbreeding coefficient of individual i; f MOL ij =molecular coancestry coefficient between individuals i and j.

Table 6 Correlation between F ROH and other genomic inbreeding coefficients for each cattle breed

F HOM=inbreeding coefficient based on the difference between observed v. expected number of homozygous genotypes; F ROH=inbreeding coefficient based on the runs of homozygosity; F GRM=inbreeding coefficient based on genomic relationship matrix; F MOL i =molecular inbreeding coefficient of individual i.

*P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001.

Selection and mating strategies have been proposed in the past for controlling inbreeding and coancestry. The best know strategy to achieve these goals is optimizing the contributions of the parents to minimize global coancestry in their offspring (Fernández et al., Reference Fernández, Meuwissen, Toro and Mäki-Tanila2003). Recently, measures of coancestry based on IBD segments (de Cara et al., Reference de Cara, Villanueva, Toro and Fernández2013) and on shared segments of the genome (Bosse et al., Reference Bosse, Megens, Madsen, Crooijmans, Ryder, Austerlitz, Groenen and de Cara2015) have been proposed as good balance between maintaining diversity and fitness, with a higher fitness than managing with molecular coancestry and higher diversity than managing with genealogical coancestry. Therefore, determining the occurrence of IBD segments in potential parents, thereby measuring their relatedness and coancestry, can be used to minimize the occurrence of long ROH in the offspring. The availability of genome-wide genotyping platforms allows us now to study populations from a more detailed perspective, providing information on the genetic status and on their evolution across time.

Conclusion

This study has reported for the first time the genome-wide inbreeding estimate using ROH in three Italian local cattle breeds. The obtained results highlight differences in detection and in distribution of ROH among breeds. In particular, Cinisara and Modicana breeds showed long ROH segments and the presence of inbreeding due to recent consanguineous mating. Therefore, our results showed the necessity of implementing conservation programs with the aim to control the level of inbreeding. The control of coancestry would restrict inbreeding depression, the probability of losing beneficial rare alleles and therefore the risk of extinction for these local cattle breeds, and may be crucial for implementing genetic improvement programs. Breeders should be aware of this situation, and breeding systems should be designed to foster and maintain genetic variation in these populations. Avoiding mating among relatives, together with other actions (e.g. sires/dams ratio, balanced progeny sizes) are strategies to control the increase of inbreeding.

Acknowledgments

This research was financed by PON02_00451_3133441, CUP: B61C1200076005 funded by MIUR. The authors would like to thank two anonymous referees for valuable comments, which helped to improve the manuscript.

Supplementary Material

For supplementary material/s referred to in this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1751731115002943

References

Allendorf, FW, Hohenlohe, PA and Luikart, G 2010. Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics 11, 697709.Google Scholar
Barrett, JC, Fry, B, Maller, J and Daly, MJ 2005. Haploview: analysis and visualization of LD and haplotype maps. Bioinformatics 21, 263265.Google Scholar
Bjelland, DW, Weigel, KA, Vukasinovic, N and Nkrumah, JD 2013. Evaluation of inbreeding depression in Holstein cattle using whole-genome SNP markers and alternative measures of genomic inbreeding. Journal of Dairy Science 96, 46974706.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosse, M, Megens, HJ, Madsen, O, Crooijmans, RP, Ryder, OA, Austerlitz, F, Groenen, MAM and de Cara, MAR 2015. Using genome-wide measures of coancestry to maintain diversity and fitness in endangered and domestic pig populations. Genome Research 25, 970981.Google Scholar
Caballero, A and Toro, MA 2002. Analysis of genetic diversity for the management of conserved subdivided populations. Conservation Genetics 3, 289299.Google Scholar
de Cara, MÁR, Villanueva, B, Toro, MA and Fernández, J 2013. Using genomic tools to maintain diversity and fitness in conservation programmes. Molecular Ecology 22, 60916099.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferenčaković, M, Hamzić, E, Gredler, B, Solberg, TR, Klemetsdal, G, Curik, I and Sölkner, J 2013a. Estimates of autozygosity derived from runs of homozygosity: empirical evidence from selected cattle populations. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 130, 286293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferenčaković, M, Solkner, J and Curik, I 2013b. Estimating autozygosity from high-throughput information: effects of SNP density and genotyping errors. Genetics Selection Evolution 45, 42.Google Scholar
Fernández, J, Meuwissen, THE, Toro, MA and Mäki-Tanila, A 2011. Management of genetic diversity in small farm animal populations. Animal 5, 16841698.Google Scholar
Fernández, J, Toro, MA and Caballero, A 2003. Fixed contributions designs vs. minimization of global coancestry to control inbreeding in small populations. Genetics 165, 885894.Google Scholar
Fontanesi, L, Scotti, E, Samorè, AB, Bagnato, A and Russo, V 2015. Association of 20 candidate gene markers with milk production and composition traits in sires of Reggiana breed, a local dairy cattle population. Livestock Science 176, 1421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García-Gámez, E, Sahana, G, Gutiérrez-Gil, B and Arranz, JJ 2012. Linkage disequilibrium and inbreeding estimation in Spanish Churra sheep. BMC Genetics 13, 43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaspa, G, Marras, G, Sorbolini, S, Ajmone Marsan, P, Williams, JL, Valentini, A, Dimauro, C and Macciotta, NPP 2014. Genome-wide homozygosity in Italian Holstein cattle using HD panel. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 17–22 August, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Gibson, J, Morton, N and Collins, A 2006. Extended tracts of homozygosity in outbred human populations. Human Molecular Genetics 15, 789795.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gómez-Romano, F, Villanueva, B, de Cara, MAR and Fernández, J 2013. Maintaining genetic diversity using molecular coancestry: the effect of marker density and effective population size. Genetics Selection Evolution 45, 38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gómez-Romano, F, Solkner, J, Villanueva, B, Mészàros, G, de Cara, MAR, Pérez O’Brien, AM and Fernández, J 2014. Genomic estimates of inbreeding and coancestry in Austrian Brown Swiss cattle. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 17–22 August, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
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, 635643.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howrigan, DP, Simonson, MA and Keller, MC 2011. Detecting autozygosity through runs of homozygosity: a comparison of three autozygosity detection algorithms. BMC Genomics 12, 460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, MC, Visscher, PM and Goddard, ME 2011. Quantification of inbreeding due to distant ancestors and its detection using dense single nucleotide polymorphism data. Genetics 189, 237249.Google Scholar
Kim, ES, Cole, JB, Huson, H, Wiggans, GR, Van Tassell, CP, Crooker, BA, Liu, G, Da, Y and Sonstegard, TS 2013. Effect of artificial selection on runs of homozygosity in U.S. Holstein cattle. PLoS One 8, e80813.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirin, M, McQuillan, R, Franklin, C, Campbell, H, McKeigue, P and Wilson, J 2010. Genomic runs of homozygosity record population history and consanguinity. PLoS One 5, e13996.Google Scholar
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, 110.Google Scholar
Marras, G, Gaspa, G, Sorbolini, S, Dimauro, C, Ajmone-Marsam, P, Valentini, A, Williams, JL and Macciotta, NPP 2014. Analysis of runs of homozygosity and their relationship with inbreeding in five cattle breeds farmed in Italy. Animal Genetics 46, 110121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mastrangelo, S, Sardina, MT, Riggio, V and Portolano, B 2012. Study of polymorphisms in the promoter region of ovine β-lactoglobulin gene and phylogenetic analysis among the Valle del Belice breed and other sheep breeds considered as ancestors. Molecular Biology Reports 39, 745751.Google Scholar
Mastrangelo, S, Saura, M, Tolone, M, Salces-Ortiz, J, Di Gerlando, R, Bertolini, F, Fontanesi, L, Sardina, MT, Serrano, M and Portolano, B 2014. The genome-wide structure of two economically important indigenous Sicilian cattle breeds. Journal of Animal Science 92, 48334842.Google Scholar
McQuillan, R, Leutenegger, AL, Abdel-Rahman, R, Franklin, CS, Pericic, M, Barac-Lauc, L, Smolej-Narancic, N, Janicijevic, B, Polasek, O, Tenesa, A, Macleod, AK, Farrington, SM, Rudan, P, Hayward, C, Vitart, V, Rudan, I, Wild, SH, Dunlop, MG, Wright, AF, Campbell, H and Wilson, JF 2008. Runs of homozygosity in European populations. The American Journal of Human Genetics 83, 359372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ober, U, Malinowski, A, Schlather, M and Simianer, H 2013. The expected linkage disequilibrium in finite populations revisited. ArXiv Preprint 1304, 4856.Google Scholar
Ouborg, NJ, Pertoldi, C, Loeschcke, V, Bijlsma, R and Hedrick, PW 2010. Conservation genetics in transition to conservation genomics. Trends in Genetics 26, 177187.Google Scholar
Pertoldi, C, Purfield, DC, Berg, P, Jensen, TH, Bach, OS, Vingborg, R and Kristensen, TN 2014. Genetic characterization of a herd of the endangered Danish Jutland cattle. Journal of Animal Science 92, 23722376.Google Scholar
Pryce, JE, Haile-Mariam, M, Goddard, ME and Hayes, BJ 2014. Identification of genomic regions associated with inbreeding depression in Holstein and Jersey dairy cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution 46, 71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purcell, S, Neale, B, Todd-Brown, K, Thomas, L, Ferreira, MA, Bender, D, Maller, J, Sklar, P, De Bakker, PI, Daly, MJ and Sham, PC 2007. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. The American Journal of Human Genetics 81, 559575.Google Scholar
Purfield, DC, Berry, DP, McParland, S and Bradley, DG 2012. Runs of homozygosity and population history in cattle. BMC Genetics 13, 70.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Saura, M, Fernández, A, Rodríguez, MC, Toro, MA, Barragán, C, Fernández, AI and Villanueva, B 2013. Genome-wide estimates of coancestry and inbreeding depression in an closed herd of ancient Iberian pigs. PLoS One 8, e78314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saura, M, Tenesa, A, Woolliams, JA, Fernández, A and Villanueva, B 2015. Evaluation of the linkage-disequilibrium method for the estimation of effective population size when generations overlap: an empirical case. BMC Genomics 16, 922.Google Scholar
Saura, M, Woolliams, JA, Tenesa, A, Fernández, A and Villanueva, B 2014. Estimation of ancient and recent effective population size from linkage disequilibrium in a closed herd of Iberian pigs. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 17–22 August, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Silió, L, Rodríguez, MC, Fernández, A, Barragán, C, Benítez, R, Óvilo, C and Fernández, AI 2013. Measuring inbreeding and inbreeding depression on pig growth from pedigree or SNP-derived metrics. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 130, 349360.Google Scholar
Sved, JA 1971. Linkage disequilibrium of chromosome segments. Theoretical Population Biology 141, 125141.Google Scholar
Tenesa, A, Navarro, P, Hayes, BJ, Duffy, DL, Clarke, GM, Goddard, ME and Visscher, PM 2007. Recent human effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium. Genome Research 17, 520526.Google Scholar
Toro, MA, Meuwissen, THE, Fernández, J, Shaat, I and Mäki-Tanila, A 2011. Assessing the genetic diversity in small farm animal populations. Animal 5, 16691683.Google Scholar
VanRaden, PM, Olson, KM, Wiggans, GR, Cole, JB and Tooker, ME 2011. Genomic inbreeding and relationships among Holsteins, Jerseys, and Brown Swiss. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 56735682.Google Scholar
Waples, R and England, PR 2011. Estimating contemporary effective population size on the basis of linkage disequilibrium in the face of migration. Genetics 189, 633644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waples, RS and Do, C 2010. Linkage disequilibrium estimates of contemporary Ne using highly variable genetic markers: a largely untapped resource for applied conservation and evolution. Evolutionary Applications 3, 244262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zavarez, LB, Utsunomiya, YT, Carmo, AS, Neves, HH, Carvalheiro, R, Ferenčaković, M, O’Brien, P, Curik, I, Cole, JB, Van Tassell, CP, da Silva, MVGB, Sonstegard, TS, Sölkner, J and Garcia, JF 2015. Assessment of autozygosity in Nellore cows (Bos indicus) through high-density SNP genotypes. Frontiers in Genetics 6, 5.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q, Calus, MP, Guldbrandtsen, B, Lund, MS and Sahana, G 2015. Estimation of inbreeding using pedigree, 50k SNP chip genotypes and full sequence data in three cattle breeds. BMC Genetics 16, 88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Y, Young, JM, Wang, C, Sun, X, Wolc, A and Dekkers, JCM 2014. Inbreeding by pedigree and genomic markers in selection lines of pigs. In Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 17–22 August, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Comparison of inbreeding derived from runs of homozygosity (FROH) values obtained by allowing different numbers of heterozygous (het) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)

Figure 1

Figure 1 Relationship between the total number of runs of homozygosity (ROH) >4 Mb and the total length (kb) of genome in such ROH for individuals from each breed. Each dot represents an individual.

Figure 2

Figure 2 Box plots of within-breed average and median sum of all ROH segments per individual. ROH=runs of homozygosity; CIN=Cinisara; MOD=Modicana; HOL=Holstein; REG=Reggiana.

Figure 3

Table 2 Descriptive statistics for runs of homozygosity (ROH) for each cattle breed

Figure 4

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the number and the frequency distribution of runs of homozygosity (ROH) in different ROH length categories (Mb) for each cattle breed

Figure 5

Figure 3 Distribution of inbreeding coefficient estimates for each chromosome (FROHBTA) calculated as the proportion of BTA in ROH over the length of the BTA covered by the involved SNPs. ROH=runs of homozygosity; CIN=Cinisara; MOD=Modicana; HOL=Holstein; REG=Reggiana.

Figure 6

Figure 4 Linkage disequilibrium across the genome as a function of genomic distance (Mb). CIN=Cinisara; MOD=Modicana; HOL=Holstein; REG=Reggiana.

Figure 7

Table 4 Effective population size (Ne) estimated from linkage disequilibrium values for each cattle breed

Figure 8

Table 5 Estimated mean of genomic inbreeding and coancestry coefficients for each cattle breed

Figure 9

Table 6 Correlation between FROH and other genomic inbreeding coefficients for each cattle breed

Supplementary material: File

Mastrangelo supplementary material S1

Supplementary Table

Download Mastrangelo supplementary material S1(File)
File 46.6 KB