4.7 Article

Myostatin mutation causing double muscling could affect increased psoroptic mange sensitivity in dual purpose Belgian Blue cattle

期刊

ANIMAL
卷 16, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.animal.2022.100460

关键词

Ectoparasitic susceptibility; GDF8; Mites; Psoroptes ovis; Scabies

资金

  1. Federal Public Service of Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment [RT 11/5 PSOROVIS, RT 17/1 BOMANGE]
  2. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) [1S37119N, 1104320N]
  3. [WG] of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mutation in the myostatin gene in Belgian Blue cattle is associated with susceptibility to psoroptic mange and an increase in lesion size.
Belgian Blue cattle are known for their high degree of muscling and good carcass qualities. This high degree of muscling is mainly caused by a mutation in the myostatin gene (MSTN). Although the MSTN mutation is considered as fixed in the Belgian Blue breed, segregation is occurring in a sub-population bred for dual purpose. In the latter population, we observed an association between the mutation in MSTN and susceptibility to psoroptic mange, a skin disease caused by Psoroptes ovis mites that heavily plagues Belgian Blue cattle. In total, 291 animals were sampled and screened for their susceptibility for mange lesions and their MSTN genotype. Via linear mixed modelling, we observed that homozygous mutant animals had a significant increase in the size of mange lesions (+2.51% lesion extent) compared to homozygous wild type. These findings were confirmed with zero-inflated modelling, an animal model and odds analysis. Risk ratios for developing severe mange lesions were 5.9 times as high for homozygous mutant animals. All analyses confirmed an association between the MSTN genotype and psoroptic mange lesion size.(c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of The Animal Consortium. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

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

4.7
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