4.5 Article

Analysis of ROH patterns in the Noriker horse breed reveals signatures of selection for coat color and body size

期刊

ANIMAL GENETICS
卷 50, 期 4, 页码 334-346

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/age.12797

关键词

draught horse; LASP1; LCORL; MC1R; PATN1; ROH island; selection signature; ZFAT

资金

  1. Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) [843464]
  2. Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism (BMNT) [101332]
  3. Slovenian Research Agency program [P4-0053]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Overlapping runs of homozygosity (ROH islands) shared by the majority of a population are hypothesized to be the result of selection around a target locus. In this study we investigated the impact of selection for coat color within the Noriker horse on autozygosity and ROH patterns. We analyzed overlapping homozygous regions (ROH islands) for gene content in fragments shared by more than 50% of horses. Long-term assortative mating of chestnut horses and the small effective population size of leopard spotted and tobiano horses resulted in higher mean genome-wide ROH coverage (S-ROH) within the range of 237.4-284.2 Mb, whereas for bay, black and roan horses, where rotation mating is commonly applied, lower autozygosity (S-ROH from 176.4-180.0 Mb) was determined. We identified seven common ROH islands considering all Noriker horses from our dataset. Specific islands were documented for chestnut, leopard spotted, roan and bay horses. The ROH islands contained, among others, genes associated with body size (ZFAT, LASP1 and LCORL/NCAPG), coat color (MC1R in chestnut and the factor PATN1 in leopard spotted horses) and morphogenesis (HOXB cluster in all color strains except leopard spotted horses). This study demonstrates that within a closed population sharing the same founders and ancestors, selection on a single phenotypic trait, in this case coat color, can result in genetic fragmentation affecting levels of autozygosity and distribution of ROH islands and enclosed gene content.

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

4.5
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