Morphological and microsatellite DNA diversity of Nigerian indigenous sheep

Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology

Ikhide G Imumorin⁶  Kadir Kizilkaya⁵  Babatunde M Ilori³  Marcos De Donato⁶  Gbolabo O Onasanya³  Moses Okpeku¹  Timothy M Sanni³  Oludotun J Ekundayo³  Samuel A Amusan³  Oyeyemi O Ajayi³  Matthew Wheto³  Christian ON Ikeobi³  Michael O Ozoje³  Olufunmilayo A Adebambo³  Abdulmojeed Yakubu⁴  Mufliat A Adefenwa²  Sunday O Peters⁷  Brilliant O Agaviezor⁶ 

[1] Dept of Livestock Production, Niger Delta University, Amasomma, Bayelsa State, Nigeria;Department of Cell Biology and Genetics, University of Lagos, Lagos, Nigeria;Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria;Department of Animal Science, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Shabu-Lafia Campus, Lafia, Nigeria;Department of Animal Science, Adnan Menderes University, Aydin 09100, Turkey;Dept of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA;Dept of Animal Science, Berry College, Mount Berry, GA 30149, USA

关键词: Nigerian sheep;    Morphological traits;    Microsatellite DNA;    Genetic distance;    Discriminant analysis;   

Others  :  813346
DOI  :  10.1186/2049-1891-3-38

 received in 2011-12-30, accepted in 2012-11-01,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Sheep is important in the socio-economic lives of people around the world. It is estimated that more than half of our once common livestock breeds are now endangered. Since genetic characterization of Nigerian sheep is still lacking, we analyzed ten morphological traits on 402 animals and 15 microsatellite DNA markers in 384 animals of the 4 Nigerian sheep breeds to better understand genetic diversity for breeding management and germplasm conservation.

Results

Morphological traits of Uda and Balami were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than Yankasa, which were both higher than West African Dwarf (WAD) sheep. Stepwise discriminant analysis showed tail length, rump height, chest girth, ear length and chest depth as the most discriminating variables for classification. Mahalanobis distances show the least differentiation between Uda and Balami and the largest between WAD and Balami sheep. While 93.3% of WAD sheep were correctly assigned to their source genetic group, 63.9% of Yankasa, 61.2% of Balami and 45.2% of Uda were classified correctly by nearest neighbour discriminant analysis. The overall high Polymorphism Information Content (PIC) of all microsatellite markers ranged from 0.751 to 0.927 supporting their use in genetic characterization. Expected heterozygosity was high for all loci (0.783 to 0.93). Mean heterozygote deficiency across all populations (0.171 to 0.534) possibly indicate significant inbreeding (P < 0.05). Mean values for F_ST, F_IT and F_IS statistics across all loci were 0.088, 0.394 and 0.336 respectively. Yankasa and Balami are the most closely related breeds (D_A = 0.184) while WAD and Balami are the farthest apart breeds (D_A = 0.665), which is coincident with distance based on morphological analysis and population structure assessed by STRUCTURE.

Conclusions

These results suggest that within-breed genetic variation in Nigerian sheep is higher than between-breeds and may be a valuable tool for genetic improvement and conservation. The higher genetic variability in Yankasa suggests the presence of unique ancestral alleles reflecting the presence of certain functional genes which may result in better adaptability in more agro-ecological zones of Nigeria. These genetic characteristics are potentially useful in planning improvement and conservation strategies in Nigerian indigenous sheep.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Agaviezor et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]FAOSTAT: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT Database on Agriculture. Italy: Rome; 2011. [http://faostat.fao.org/default.aspx. webcite]
• [2]Yakubu A, Ibrahim IA: Multivariate analysis of morphostructural characteristics in Nigerian indigenous sheep. Ital J Anim Sci 2011, 10:17.
• [3]FAO: The State of Food and Agriculture. Rome; 2010:176. [Livestock in the Balance]
• [4]Taberlet P, Coissac E, Pansu J, Pompanon F: Conservation genetics of cattle, sheep, and goats. C R Biol 2011, 334:247-254.
• [5]Gizaw S, van Arendonk JAM, Komen H, Windig JJ, Hanotte O: Population structure, genetic variation and morphological diversity in indigenous sheep of Ethiopia. Anim Genet 2007, 38:621-628.
• [6]Carneiro H, Louvandini H, Paiva SR, Macedo F, Mernies B, McManus C: Morphological characterization of sheep breeds in Brazil. Uruguay and Colombia. Small Rum Res 2010, 94:58-65.
• [7]Peter C, Bruford M, Perez T, Dalamitra S, Hewitt G, Erhardt G: Genetic diversity and subdivision of 57 European and Middle-Eastern sheep breeds. Anim Genet 2007, 38:37-44.
• [8]Cinkulov M, Popovski Z, Porcu K, Tanaskovska B, Hodzic A, Bytyqi H, Mehmeti H, Margeta V, Djedovic R, Hoda A, Trailovic R, Brka M, Markovic B, Vazic B, Vegara M, Oslaker I, Kantanen J: Genetic diversity and structure of the West Balkan pramenka sheep types as revealed by microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA analysis. J Anim Breed Genet 2008, 125:417-426.
• [9]D’Angelo CS, Gajecka M, Kim CA, Gentles AJ, Glotzbach CD, Shaffer LG, Koiffmann CP: Further delineation of nonhomologous-based recombination and evidence for subtelomeric segmental duplications in 1p36 rearrangements. Hum Genet 2009, 125:551-563.
• [10]Arora RJ, Bhatia SB, Mishra P, Jain A, Prakash B: Diversity analysis of sheep breeds from Southern peninsular and Eastern regions of India. Trop Anim Health Prod 2010, 43:401-408.
• [11]Arora R, Bhatia S, Mishra BP, Joshi BK: Population structure in Indian sheep ascertained using microsatellite information. Anim Genet 2011, 42:242-250.
• [12]Niu BF, Fu LM, Sun SL, Li WZ: Artificial and natural duplicates in pyrosequencing reads of metagenomic data. BMC Bioinform 2010, 11:187. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Paiva SR, Mariante AD, Blackburn HD: Combining US and Brazilian microsatellite data for a meta-analysis of sheep (Ovis aries) breed diversity: facilitating the FAO global plan of action for conserving animal genetic resources. J Hered 2011, 102:697-704.
• [14]Riva J, Rizzi R, Marelli S, Cavalchini LG: Body measurements in Bergamasca sheep. Small Rum Res 2004, 55:221-227.
• [15]Cervantes I, Baumung R, Molina A, Druml T, Gutierrez JP, Solkner J, Valera M: Size and shape analysis of morphofunctional traits in the Spanish Arab horse. Livestock Sci 2009, 125:43-49.
• [16]Dossa LH, Wollny C, Gauly M: Spatial variation in goat populations from Benin as revealed by multivariate analysis of morphological traits. Small Rum Res 2007, 73:150-159.
• [17]Esmaeelkhanian S, Torshizi RV, Zahedi-Zahra: Microsatellite variation of one breed of Iranian sheep with 12 markers. Pak J Biol Sci 2007, 10:4455-4460.
• [18]Kumar D, Sharma R, Pandey AK, Gour DS, Malik G, Ahlawat SPS, Jain A: Genetic diversity and bottleneck analysis of Indian Bellary sheep by microsatellite markers. Russ J Genet 2006, 43:996-1005.
• [19]Adebambo OA, Williams JL, Blott S, Urquhart B: Genetic relationships between native sheep breeds in Nigeria based on microsatellite DNA polymorphisms. Anim Genet Res Inform Bull 2004, 34:27-39.
• [20]Agaviezor BO, Adefenwa MA, Peters SO, Yakubu A, Adebambo AO, Ozoje MO, Ikeobi CON, Ilori BM, Wheto M, Okpeku M, De Donato M, Imumorin IG: Mitochondrial D-loop genetic diversity of Nigerian indigenous sheep. Anim Genet Res 2012, 50:13-20.
• [21]Wilson AJ, Pemberton JM, Pilkington JG, Clutton Brock TH, Coltman DW, Kruuk LEB: Quantitative genetics of growth and cryptic evolution of body size in an island population. Evol Ecol 2007, 21:337-356.
• [22]Collyer ML, Adams DC: Analysis of 2 states multivariate phenotypic change in ecological studies. Ecology 2007, 88:683-692.
• [23]Yakubu A, Salako AE, Imumorin IG, Ige AO, Akinyemi MO: Discriminant analysis of morphometric differentiation in the West African Dwarf and Red Sokoto goats. South African J Anim Sci 2010, 40:381-387.
• [24]Yakubu A, Idahor KO, Haruna HS, Wheto M, Amusan S: Multivariate analysis of phenotypic differentiation in Bunaji and Sokoto Gudali cattle. Acta Agric Slov 2010, 96:75-80.
• [25]Ajayi OO, Yakubu A, Jayeola OO, Imumorin IG, Adeleke MA, Takeet MI, Ozoje MO, Ikeobi CON, Peters SO: Multivariate analysis of sexual size dimorphism in domestic turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in Nigeria. Trop Anim Hth Prod 2012, 44(5):1089-1095. In press
• [26]Vargas S, Larbi A, Sanchez M: Analysis of size and conformation of native Creole goat breeds and crossbreds used in smallholder agrosilvopastoral systems in Puebla, Mexico. Trop Anim Hth Prod 2007, 39:279-286.
• [27]Sun W, Chang H, Ren ZJ, Yang ZP, Geng RQ, Tsunoda K: Multivariate statistical analysis of morphological and ecological characters of some sheep populations in China. Sci Agric Sin 2004, 37:285-290.
• [28]Yakubu A, Akinyemi MO: An evaluation of sexual size dimorphism in Uda sheep using multifactorial discriminant analysis. Acta Agric Scand Sect A Anim Sci 2010, 60:74-78.
• [29]Polak J, Frynta D: Patterns of sexual size dimorphism in cattle breeds support Rensch’s rule. Evol Ecol 2010, 24:1255-1266.
• [30]Bacchi CS, Lanari MR, von Thungen J: Non-genetic factors affecting morphometric and fleece traits in guanaco (Lama guanicoe guanicoe). Small Rum Res 2010, 88:54-61.
• [31]Felsenstein J: Has natural selection been refuted? The Arguments of William Dembski. Rep Na Center Sci Educ (RNCSE) 2007, 27:20-26.
• [32]Farid A, O’Reilly E, Dollard C, Kelsey CR: Genetic analysis of ten sheep breeds using microsatellites. Canad J Anim Sc 2000, 80:9-17.
• [33]Dalvit C, Saccà E, Cassandro M, Gervaso M, Pastore E, Piasentier E: Genetic diversity and variability in Alpine sheep breeds. Small Rum Res 2008, 80:45-51.
• [34]Bataillon TM, David JL, Schoen DJ: Neutral genetic markers and conservation genetics: simulated germplasm collections. Genetics 1996, 144:409-417.
• [35]Nei M, Maruyama T, Chakraborty R: The bottleneck effect and genetic variability in populations. Evolution 1975, 29:1-10.
• [36]Petit RJ, El Mousadik A, Pons O: Identifying populations for conservation on the basis of genetic markers. Conserv Biol 1998, 12:844-855.
• [37]El Mousadik A, Petit RJ: High level of genetic differentiation for allelic richness among populations of the argan tree [Argania spinosa (L) Skeels] endemic to Morocco. Theor Appl Genet 1996, 92:832-839.
• [38]Ryman N, Leimar O: GST is still a useful measure of genetic differentiation - a comment on Jost’s D. Molec Ecol 2009, 18:2084-2087.
• [39]Bozzi R, Degl’Innocenti P, Rivera-Diaz P, Nardi L, Crovetti A, Sargentini C, Giorgetti A: Genetic characterization and breed assignment in five Italian sheep breeds using microsatellite markers. Small Rum Res 2009, 85:50-57.
• [40]Handley LL, Byrne K, Santucci F, Townsend S, Taylor M, Bruford MW, Hewitt GM: Genetic structure of European sheep breeds. Heredity 2007, 99:620-631.
• [41]Krebs C: Ecological Methodology. New York: HarperCollins; 1989:1-5.
• [42]Mukesh M, Sodhi M, Bhatia S: Microsatellite-based diversity analysis and genetic relationship of three Indian sheep breeds. J Anim Breed Genet 2006, 123:258-264.
• [43]Cañon J, Garcia D, Garcia-Atance MA, Obexer-Ruff G, Lenstra JA, Ajmone-Marsan P, Dunner S, ECONOGENE Consortium: Geographical partitioning of goat diversity in Europe and the Middle East. Anim Genet 2006, 37:327-334.
• [44]Taberlet P, Valentini A, Rezaei HR, Naderi S, Pompanon F, Negrini R, Ajmone-Marsan P: Are cattle, sheep, and goats endangered species? Mol Ecol 2008, 17:275-284.
• [45]Wiener G, Lee GJ, Wooliams JA: Consequences of inbreeding for financial returns from sheep. Anim Prod 1994, 59:245-249.
• [46]Notter DR: The importance of genetic diversity in livestock populations of the future. J Anim Sci 1999, 77:61-69.
• [47]Jia B, Chen J, Zhao RQ, Luo QJ, Yan GQ, Chen J: Microsatellite analysis of genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationship of eight sheep breeds in Xinjiang. Yi Chuan Xue Ba 2003, 30:847-854.
• [48]Pedrosa S, Uzun M, Arranz JJ, Gutiérrez-Gil B, San Primitivo F, Bayón Y: Evidence of three maternal lineages in Near Eastern sheep supporting multiple domestication events. Proc R Soc Lond 2007, 272:2211-2217.
• [49]Ndumu DB, Baumung R, Hanotte O, Wurzinger M, Okeyo MA, Jianlin H, Kibogo H, Solkner J: Genetic and morphological characterization of the Ankole Longhorn cattle in the African Great Lakes regions. Genet Sel Evol 2008, 40:467-490.
• [50]Wilson RT, Durkin JW: Age at permanent incisor eruption in indigenous goats and sheep in semi-arid Africa. Livest Prod Sci 1984, 11:451-455.
• [51]FAO: Molecular genetic characterization of animal genetic resources. FAO animal production and health guidelines. Rome. 2011, 9:65-84.
• [52]Genemapper Software Version 3.0. Applied Biosystems. Carlsbad, CA, USA; http://mvz.berkeley.edu/egl/resources/manuals/GeneMapper webcite
• [53]SAS: Statistical Analysis System User’s Guide. NC 27513, USA: SAS Institute Inc. Cary; 2010. [Statistic]
• [54]Dieringer D, Schlotterer C: Microsatellite Analyser (MSA): a platform independent analysis tool for large microsatellite data sets. Molec Ecol Notes 2003, 3:167-169.
• [55]Raymond M, Rousset F: Genepop (Version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered 1995, 86:248-249.
• [56]Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P: Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 2000, 155:945-959.
• [57]Rosenberg NA, Pritchard JK, Weber JL, et al.: Genetic structure of human populations. Science 2002, 298:2381-2385.