Conservation Genetics

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 1639–1641 | Cite as

Correlated pedigree and molecular estimates of inbreeding and their ability to detect inbreeding depression in the Icelandic sheepdog, a recently bottlenecked population of domestic dogs

  • Gudbjörg Á. Ólafsdóttir
  • Theódór Kristjánsson
Short Communication

Abstract

We examine the relationship of the inbreeding coefficient (f) and molecular estimates of inbreeding (IR, sMLH) in the Icelandic sheepdog. The breed experienced a severe genetic bottleneck and near extinction in the last century. Molecular estimates and the inbreeding coefficient are significantly correlated despite the moderate number of markers and individuals used in this study. This is most likely an effect of the extreme relatedness and relatively high variance in individual inbreeding coefficients in the population. There is a significant relationship between inbreeding (f) and the occurrence of hip dysplasia. However, the molecular measures did not detect hip dysplasia as an inbreeding effect.

Keywords

Inbreeding Multilocus heterozygosity Heterozygosity fitness correlations Canis familiaris 

References

  1. Amos W, Worthington Wilmer J, Fullard K, Burg TM, Croxall JP, Bloch D, Coulson T (2001) The influence of parental relatedness on reproductive success. Proc R Soc Lond B 268:2021–2027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balloux F, Amos W, Coulson T (2004) Does heterozygosity estimate inbreeding in real populations?. Mol Ecol 13:3021–3031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belkhir K (2000) GENETIX 4.0. Laboatoire génome, populations, interactions. CNRS UPR 9060, Monpellier, FranceGoogle Scholar
  4. Coltman DW, Slate J (2003) Microsatellite measures of inbreeding: a meta-analysis. Evolution 57:971–983PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Coltman DW, Pilkington JG, Smith JA, Pemberton JM (1999) Parasite-mediated selection against inbred Soay sheep in a free-living, island population. Evolution 53:1259–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1987) Inbreeding depression and its evolutionary consequences. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 18:237–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frankham R, Ballou JD, Briscoe DA (2002) Introduction to conservation genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Leroy G, Rognon X, Varlet A, Joffrin C, Verrier E (2006) Genetic variability in French dog breeds assessed by pedigree data. J Anim Breed Genet 123:1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mäki K, Groen AF, Liinamo AE, Ojala M (2001) Population structure, inbreeding trend and their association with hip and elbow dysplasia in dogs. Anim Sci 73:217–228Google Scholar
  10. Slate J, David P, Dodds KG, Veenvliet BA, Glass BC, Broad TE, McEwan JC (2004) Understanding the relationship between the inbreeding coefficient and multilocus heterozygosity: theoretical expectations and empirical data. Heredity 93:255–265PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gudbjörg Á. Ólafsdóttir
    • 1
  • Theódór Kristjánsson
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of BiologyUniversity of IcelandReykjavikIceland
  2. 2.Vestfirdir Research CentreUniversity of IcelandBolungarvikIceland

Personalised recommendations