4.4 Article

Mixed Inheritance of Equine Recurrent Airway Obstruction

Journal

JOURNAL OF VETERINARY INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 23, Issue 3, Pages 626-630

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2009.0292.x

Keywords

Heaves; Horse; Genetics; Lung; Major gene; Segregation analysis

Funding

  1. Vetsuisse
  2. DKV
  3. Berne Equine Lung Research Group
  4. Swiss National Science Foundation [310000-116502]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mode of inheritance of equine recurrent airway obstruction (RAO) is unknown. Major genes are responsible for RAO. Direct offspring of 2 RAO-affected Warmblood stallions (n = 197; n = 163) and a representative sample of Swiss Warmbloods (n = 401). One environmental and 4 genetic models (general, mixed inheritance, major gene, and polygene) were tested for Horse Owner Assessed Respiratory Signs Index (1-4, unaffected to severely affected) by segregation analyses of the 2 half-sib sire families, both combined and separately, using prevalences estimated in a representative sample. In all data sets the mixed inheritance model was most likely to explain the pattern of inheritance. In all 3 datasets the mixed inheritance model did not differ significantly from the general model (P = .62, P = 1.00, and P = .27) but was always better than the major gene model (P < .01) and the polygene model (P < .01). The frequency of the deleterious allele differed considerably between the 2 sire families (P = .23 and P = .06). In both sire families the displacement was large (t = 17.52 and t = 12.24) and the heritability extremely large (h(2) = 1). Segregation analyses clearly reveal the presence of a major gene playing a role in RAO. In 1 family, the mode of inheritance was autosomal dominant, whereas in the other family it was autosomal recessive. Although the expression of RAO is influenced by exposure to hay, these findings suggest a strong, complex genetic background for RAO.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available