4.3 Article

Genetic diversity in South African Nguni cattle ecotypes based on microsatellite markers

期刊

TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION
卷 48, 期 2, 页码 379-385

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-015-0962-9

关键词

Population structure; Conservation; Ecotypes; Microsatellites

资金

  1. Limpopo Department of Agriculture and Agricultural Research Council-Animal Production Institute (ARC-API)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Nguni cattle breed is a landrace breed adapted to different ecological regions of South Africa. A number of ecotypes are recognised based on phenotype within the breed, but it is not known if they are genetically distinct. In this study, molecular characterisation was performed on Makhathini (MAK), Pedi (PED), Shangaan (SHA) and Venda (VEN) Nguni cattle ecotypes. Two Nguni cattle populations, not kept as separate ecotypes, from the University of Fort Hare (UFH) and Agricultural Research Council Loskop South farm (LOS) were also included. Genotypic data was generated for 189 unrelated Nguni cattle selected based on pedigree records using 22 microsatellite markers. The expected heterozygosity values varied from 69 % (UFH) to 72 % (PED) with a mean number of alleles ranging from 6.0 to 6.9. The F (ST) estimate demonstrated that 4.8 % of the total genetic variation was due to the genetic differentiation between the populations and 92.2 % accounted for differences within the populations. The genetic distances and structure analysis revealed the closest relationship between MAK, PEDI and SHA ecotypes, followed by SHA and VEN. The UFH population clustered with the MAK ecotype, indicating that they are more genetically similar, while the LOS cattle grouped as a distinct cluster. Results suggest that the genetic differentiation between the PED and SHA ecotypes is low and can be regarded as one ecotype based on limited genetic differences. The results of this study can be applied as a point of reference for further genetic studies towards conservation of Nguni cattle ecotypes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据