Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T17:45:51.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic characterization of four native Italian shepherd dog breeds and analysis of their relationship to cosmopolitan dog breeds using microsatellite markers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2015

D. Bigi ,
S. P. Marelli ,
E. Randi  and
M. Polli
D. Bigi*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Science and Technology (DISTAL), University of Bologna, Via F.lli Rosselli 107, 42123 Reggio Emilia, Italy
S. P. Marelli
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Veterinarie e Sanità Pubblica, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Celoria 10, 20133 Milano, Italy
E. Randi
Affiliation:
Laboratorio di Genetica, Istituto Superiore per la Protezione e Ricerca Ambientale, Ozzano Emilia, Bologna, Italy Department 18/ Section of Environmental Engineering, Aalborg University, Sohngårdsholmsvej 57, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark
M. Polli
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Scienze Veterinarie e Sanità Pubblica, Università degli Studi di Milano, via Celoria 10, 20133 Milano, Italy
*
†E-mail: daniele.bigi@unibo.it
Get access

Abstract

Very little research into genetic diversity of Italian native dog breeds has been carried out so far. In this study we aimed to estimate and compare the genetic diversity of four native Italian shepherd dog breeds: the Maremma, Bergamasco, Lupino del Gigante and Oropa shepherds. Therefore, some cosmopolitan dog breeds, which have been widely raised in Italy for a long time past, have also been considered to check possible influence of these dog populations on the Italian autochthonous breeds considered here. A total of 212 individuals, belonging to 10 different dog breeds, were sampled and genotyped using 18 autosomal microsatellite loci. We analyzed the genetic diversity of these breeds, within breed diversity, breed relationship and population structure. The 10 breeds considered in this study were clearly genetically differentiated from each other, regardless of current population sizes and the onset of separate breeding history. The level of genetic diversity explained 20% of the total genetic variation. The level of HE found here is in agreement with that found by other studies. The native Italian breeds showed generally higher genetic diversity compared with the long established, well-defined cosmopolitan dog breeds. As the Border Collie seems closer to the Italian breeds than the other cosmopolitan shepherd dogs considered here, a possible utilization of this breed to improve working performance in Italian traditional working shepherd dogs cannot be ignored. The data and information found here can be utilized in the organization of conservation programs planned to reduce inbreeding and to minimize loss of genetic variability.

Keywords

genetic diversitypopulation genetic structuredomestic dogshepherd dogcanine
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 9 , Issue 12 , December 2015 , pp. 1921 - 1928
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Altet, L, Francino, O and Sanchez, A 2001. Microsatellite polymorphism in closely related dogs. Journal of Heredity 92, 276–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bigi, D and Perrotta, G 2012. Genetic structure and differentiation of the Italian Catria horse. Journal of Heredity 103, 134–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bjornerfeldt, S, Hailer, F, Nord, M and Vila, C 2008. Assortative mating and fragmentation within dog breeds. BMC Evolutionary Biology 8, 28.Google Scholar
Boitard, S, Chevalet, C, Mercat, MJ, Meriaux, JC, Sanchez, A, Tibau, J and Sancristobal, M 2010. Genetic variability, structure and assignment of Spanish and French pig populations based on a large sampling. Animal Genetics 41, 608–618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breber, P 1990. Il Cane da Pastore Maremmano-Abruzzese. Nuova Cinofilia – Editoriale Olimpia, Firenze, Italy.Google Scholar
Budowle, B, Garofano, P, Hellman, A, Ketchum, M, Sree, S, Kanthaswamy, S, Parson, W, Van Haeringen, W, Fain, S and Broad, T 2005. Recommendations for animal DNA forensic and identity testing. International Journal of Legal Medicine 119, 295–302.Google Scholar
Canon, J, Alexandrino, P, Bessa, I, Carleos, C, Carretero, Y, Dunner, S, Ferran, N, Garcia, D, Jordana, J, Laloe, D, Pereira, A, Sanchez, A and Moazami-Goudarzi, K 2001. Genetic diversity measures of local European beef cattle breeds for conservation purposes. Genetics Selection Evolution 33, 311–332.Google Scholar
Cecchi, F, Paci, G, Spaterna, A and Ciampolini, R 2013. Genetic variability in Bracco Italiano dog breed assessed by pedigree data. Italian Journal of Animal Science 12, 348–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciampolini, R, Cecchi, F, Bramante, A, Casetti, F and Presciuttini, S 2011. Genetic variability of the Bracco Italiano dog breed based on microsatellite polimorphysm. Italian Journal of Animal Science 10, 267–270.Google Scholar
Ciampolini, R, Cecchi, F, Paci, G, Policardo, C and Spaterna, A 2013. Investigation on the genetic variability of the American Pit Bull Terrier dogs belonging to an Italian breeder using microsatellite markers and genealogical data. Cytology and Genetics 47, 217–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colli, L, Perrotta, G, Negrini, R, Bomba, L, Bigi, D, Zambonelli, P, Verini Supplizi, A, Liotta, L and Ajmone-Marsan, P 2012. Detecting population structure and recent demographic history in endangered livestock breeds: the case of the Italian autochthonous donkeys. Animal Genetics 44, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeNise, S, Johnston, E, Halverson, J, Marshall, K, Rosenfeld, D, McKenna, S, Sharp, T and Edwards, J 2004. Power of exclusion for parentage verification and probability of match for identity in American kennel club breeds using 17 canine microsatellite markers. Animal Genetics 35, 14–17.Google Scholar
Evanno, G, Regnaut, S and Goudet, J 2005. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Molecular Ecology 14, 2611–2620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Excoffier, L and Lisher, HE 2010. Arlequin suite ver 3.5: a new series of programs to perform population genetics analyses under Linux and Windows. Molecular Ecology Resources 10, 564–567.Google Scholar
Excoffier, L, Smouse, P and Quattro, J 1992. Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131, 479–491.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Falush, D, Stephens, M and Pritchard, JK 2003. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data: linked loci and correlated allele frequencies. Genetics 164, 1567–1587.Google Scholar
Goudet, J 2001. FSTAT. A program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices. Version 2.9.3.2. Retrieved November 28, 2014, from http://www.unil.ch/izea/softwares/fstat.html Google Scholar
Huson, DH and Bryant, D 2006. Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies. Molecular Biology and Evolution 23, 254–267.Google Scholar
Irion, DN, Schaffer, AL, Famula, TR, Eggleston, ML, Hughes, SS and Pedersen, NC 2003. Analysis of genetic variation in 28 dog breed populations with 100 microsatellite markers. Journal of Heredity 94, 81–87. The Veterinary Journal 196, 92–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakobsson, M and Rosenberg, NA 2007. CLUMPP: a cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23, 1801–1806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kim, KS, Tanabe, Y, Park, CK and Ha, JH 2001. Genetic variability in East Asian dogs using microsatellite loci analysis. Journal of Heredity 92, 398–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koskinen, MT 2003. Individual assignment using microsatellite DNA reveals unambiguous breed identification in the domestic dog. Animal Genetics 34, 297–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leroy, G, Verrier, E, Meriaux, JC and Rognon, X 2009. Genetic diversity of dog breeds: within-breed diversity comparing genealogical and molecular data. Animal Genetics 40, 323–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marelli, SP, Michelazzi, M, Colombo, E, Della Noce, L and Guidobono Cavalchini, L 2009. Phenotypical evaluation of “Cane da Pastore delle Alpi” canine population. In: Proceedings of the ASPA 18th Congress, 9 to 12 June, 2009, Palermo, Italy, p. 215.Google Scholar
Mellanby, RJ, Ogden, R, Clements, DN, French, AT, Gowa, AG, Powell, R, Corcoran, B, Schoeman, JP and Summers, KM 2013. Population structure and genetic heterogeneity in popular dog breeds in the UK. The Veterinary Journal 196, 92–97.Google Scholar
Parker, HG, Kim, LV, Sutter, NB, Carlson, S, Lorentzen, TD, Malek, TB, Johnson, GS, DeFrance, HB, Ostrander, EA and Kruglyak, L 2004. Genetic structure of the purebred domestic dog. Science 304, 1160–1164.Google Scholar
Parker, HG, Kukekova, AV, Akey, DT, Goldstein, O, Kirkness, EF, Baysac, KC, Mosher, DS, Aguirre, GD, Acland, GM and Ostrander, EA 2007. Breed relationships facilitate fine-mapping studies: a 7.8-kb deletion cosegregates with Collie eye anomaly across multiple dog breeds. Genome Research 17, 1562–1571.Google Scholar
Peakall, R and Smouse, PE 2006. GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Molecular Ecology Notes 6, 288–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedersen, N, Liu, H, Theilen, G and Sacks, B 2013. The effects of dog breed development on genetic diversity and the relative influences of performance and conformation breeding. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 130, 236–248.Google Scholar
Pires, AE, Amorim, IR, Ginja, C, Gomes, M, Godinho, I, Simoes, F, Oom, M, Petrucci-Fonseca, F, Matos, J and Bruford, MW 2009. Molecular structure in peripheral dog breeds: portuguese native breeds as a case study. Animal Genetics 40, 383–392.Google Scholar
Pritchard, JK, Stephens, M and Donnelly, P 2000. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Randi, E, Hulva, P, Fabbri, E, Galaverni, M, Galov, A, Kusak, J, Bigi, D, Bolfıkova, BC, Smetanova, M and Caniglia, R 2014. Multilocus detection of wolf×dog hybridization in Italy, and guidelines for marker selection. PLoS One 9 (1), e86409.Google Scholar
Reynolds, J, Weir, BS and Cockerham, CC 1983. Estimation for the coancestry coefficient: basis for a short-term genetic distance. Genetics 105, 767–779.Google Scholar
Rice, WR 1989. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43, 223–225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenberg, NA 2004. Distruct: a program for the graphical display of population structure. Molecular Ecology Notes 4, 137–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streitberger, K, Schweizer, M, Kropatsch, R, Dekomien, G, Distl, O, Fischer, MS, Epplen, JT and Hertwig, ST 2011. Rapid genetic diversification within dog breeds as evidenced by a case study on Schnauzers. Animal Genetics 43, 577–586.Google Scholar
Wade, CM 2011. Inbreeding and genetic diversity in dogs: results from DNAanalysis. The Veterinary Journal 189, 183–188.Google Scholar
Weir, BS and Cockerham, CC 1984. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38, 1358–1370.Google Scholar
Wright, S 1965. The interpretation of population structure by F-statistics with special regard to systems of mating. Evolution 19, 395–420.Google Scholar