4.5 Article

Genetic diversity among horse populations with a special focus on the Franches-Montagnes breed

Journal

ANIMAL GENETICS
Volume 37, Issue 1, Pages 33-39

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2005.01376.x

Keywords

assignment; clustering; Franches-Montagnes; genetic diversity; horse; microsatellites

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Genetic characterization helps to assure breed integrity and to assign individuals to defined populations. The objective of this study was to characterize genetic diversity in six horse breeds and to analyse the population structure of the Franches-Montagnes breed, especially with regard to the degree of introgression with Warmblood. A total of 402 alleles from 50 microsatellite loci were used. The average number of alleles per locus was significantly lower in Thoroughbreds and Arabians. Average heterozygosities between breeds ranged from 0.61 to 0.72. The overall average of the coefficient of gene differentiation because of breed differences was 0.100, with a range of 0.036-0.263. No significant correlation was found between this parameter and the number of alleles per locus. An increase in the number of homozygous loci with increasing inbreeding could not be shown for the Franches-Montagnes horses. The proportion of shared alleles, combined with the neighbour-joining method, defined clusters for Icelandic Horse, Comtois, Arabians and Franches-Montagnes. A more disparate clustering could be seen for European Warmbloods and Thoroughbreds, presumably from frequent grading-up of Warmbloods with Thoroughbreds. Grading-up effects were also observed when Bayesian and Monte Carlo resampling approaches were used for individual assignment to a given population. Individual breed assignments to defined reference populations will be very difficult when introgression has occurred. The Bayesian approach within the Franches-Montagnes breed differentiated individuals with varied proportions of Warmblood.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available