Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:27:31.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating myostatin gene effect on milk performance traits using estimated gene content for a large number of non-genotyped cows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2010

B. Buske ,
M. Szydlowski ,
C. Verkenne  and
N. Gengler
B. Buske*
Affiliation:
University of Liège, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Animal Science Unit, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium
M. Szydlowski
Affiliation:
University of Liège, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Animal Science Unit, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium Department of Genetics and Animal Breeding, Poznan University of Life Sciences, 60-637 Poznan, Poland
C. Verkenne
Affiliation:
University of Liège, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Animal Science Unit, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium
N. Gengler
Affiliation:
University of Liège, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, Animal Science Unit, B-5030 Gembloux, Belgium National Fund for Scientific Research, B-1000 Brussels, Belgium
Get access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to estimate the myostatin (mh) gene’s effect on milk, protein and fat yield in a large heterogeneous cow population, of which only a small portion was genotyped. For this purpose, a total of 13 992 889 test-day records derived from 799 778 cows were available. The mh gene effect was estimated via BLUP using a multi-lactation, multi-trait random regression test-day model with an additional fixed regression on mh gene content. As only 1416 animals, (of which 1183 cows had test-day records) were genotyped, more animals of additional breeds with assumed known genotype were added to estimate the genotype (gene content) of the remaining cows more reliably. This was carried out using the conventional pedigree information between genotyped animals and their non-genotyped relatives. Applying this rule, mean estimated gene content over all cows with test-day records was 0.104, showing that most cows were homozygous +/+. In contrast, when gene content estimation was only based on genotyped animals, mean estimated gene content over all cows with test-day records was with 1.349 overestimated. Therefore, the applied method for gene content estimation in large populations needs additional genotype assumptions about additional animals representing genetic diversity when the breed composition in the complete population is heterogeneous and only a few animals from predominantly one breed are genotyped. Concerning allele substitution effects for one copy of the ‘mh’ gene variant, significant decreases of −76.1 kg milk, −3.6 kg fat and −2.8 kg protein/lactation were obtained on average when gene content estimation was additionally based on animals with assumed known genotype. Based on this result, knowledge of the mh genotypes and their effects has the potential to improve milk performance traits in cattle.

Keywords

BLUPestimated gene contentmilk performance traitsmyostatin gene
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 43 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Auvray, B, Gengler, N 2002. Feasibility of a Walloon test-day model and study of its potential as tool for selection and management. Interbull Bulletin 29, 123–127.Google Scholar
Bellinge, RHS, Liberles, DA, Iaschi, SPA, O’Brian, PA, Tay, GK 2005. Myostatin and its implications on animal breeding: a review. Animal Genetics 36, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buske, B, Szydlowski, M, Gengler, N 2010. A robust method for simultaneous estimation of single gene and polygenic effects in dairy cows using externally estimated breeding values as prior information. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 127, 272–279.Google Scholar
Chen, WM, Abecasis, GR 2007. Family-based association tests for genomewide association scans. American Journal of Human Genetics 81, 913–926.Google Scholar
Croquet, C, Mayeres, P, Gillon, A, Vanderick, S, Gengler, N 2006. Inbreeding depression for global and partial economic indexes, production, type, and functional traits. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2257–2267.Google Scholar
Fahrenkrug, SC, Casas, E, Keele, JW, Smith, TP 1999. Technical note: direct genotyping of the double-muscling locus (mh) in Piedmontese and Belgian Blue cattle by fluorescent PCR. Journal of Animal Science 77, 2028–2030.Google Scholar
Gengler, N, Tijani, A, Wiggans, GR, Misztal, I 1999. Estimation of (co)variance function coefficients for TD yield with an expectation-maximization restricted maximum likelihood algorithm. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 1849–1871.Google Scholar
Gengler, N, Mayeres, P, Baudouin, J, Abras, S, Félix, A, Michaux, C 2004. Combined use of quantitative and molecular data in genetic evaluations for milk production of dual-purpose Belgian Blue Cows. Interbull Bulletin 32, 165–169.Google Scholar
Gengler, N, Mayeres, P, Szydlowski, M 2007. A simple method to approximate gene content in large pedigree populations: application to the myostatin gene in dual-purpose Belgian Blue cattle. Animal 1, 21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gengler, N, Abras, S, Verkenne, C, Vanderick, S, Szydlowski, M, Renaville, R 2008. Accuracy of prediction of gene content in large animal populations and its use for candidate gene detection and genetic evaluation. Journal of Dairy Science 91, 1652–1659.Google Scholar
Harville, DA 1979. Some useful representations for constrained mixed-model estimations. Journal of American Statistical Association 74, 220–226.Google Scholar
Howie, BN, Donnelly, P, Marchini, J 2009. A flexible and accurate genotype imputation method for the next generation of genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genetics 5(6), e1000529. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000529.Google Scholar
Israel, C, Weller, JI 1998. Estimation of candidate gene effects in dairy cattle populations. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 1653–1662.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, TH, Hayes, BJ, Goddard, ME 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157, 1819–1829.Google Scholar
Stranden, I, Lidauer, M 1999. Solving large mixed linear models using preconditioned conjugate gradient iteration. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 2779–2787.Google Scholar
Van Arendonk, JAM, Smith, C, Kennedy, BW 1989. Method to estimate genotype probabilities at individual loci in farm livestock. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 78, 735–740.Google Scholar