Population structure of Mazandaran native fowls using pedigree analysis
- 119 Downloads
The objective of this study was to use pedigree analysis to evaluate the population structure and genetic variability of the Mazandaran native fowls in Iran by quantifying the pedigree completeness index, effective population size, genetic diversity, inbreeding level, and individual increase in inbreeding. The pedigree completeness analysis showed 3.31 full, 10.19 maximum, and 6.30 equivalent generations. The effective number of founders (f e) was 131, representing 5% of the potential number of founders. The effective number of ancestors (f a) was 81, and the genetic contribution of the 37 most influent ancestors explained 50% of the genetic variability in the population. The ratio f e/f a (effective number of founders/effective number of ancestors), which expresses the effect of population bottlenecks, was 1.62. The inbreeding coefficient increased over generations and the average was 1.93%. The average relatedness coefficient between individuals of the population was estimated to be 2.59%. The effective population size, based on the number of full generations, was 56. Family size analysis showed that fewer males than females were used, resulting in the observed levels of inbreeding. Average inbreeding coefficient in the Mazandaran native fowls can be regarded to be below critical levels. However, considering the relationship coefficients of individuals is recommended to aid maintaining genetic diversity of Mazandaran native fowls.
KeywordsEffective population size Genetic diversity Inbreeding Indigenous chickens
The author sincerely thanks the Mazandaran native fowl breeding station’s staffs for providing the data set used in this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
- Ameli, H., Flock, D.K. and Glodek, P., 1991. Cumulative inbreeding in commercial White leghorn lines under long-term reciprocal recurrent selection. British Poultry Science, 32, 439–449.Google Scholar
- Caballero, A., 1994. Developments in the prediction of effective populationsize. Heredity, 73, 657–679.Google Scholar
- Fair, M.D., Van Wyk, J.B. and Cloete, S.W.P., 2012. Pedigree analysis of an ostrich breeding flock. South African Journal of Animal Science, 42, 114–122.Google Scholar
- FAO.,1998. Secondary Guidelines for Development of National Farm Animal Genetic Resources Management Plans: Management of Small Populations at Risk. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
- FAO., 2007. Global plan of action for animal genetic resources and the Interlaken declaration. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
- Lariviere, J.M., Detilleux, J. And Leroy, P., 2011. Estimates of inbreeding rates in forty traditional Belgian chicken breeds populations. Europian Poultry Science, 75, 1–6.Google Scholar
- Maignel, L., Boichard, D. and Verrier, E., 1996. Genetic variability of French dairy breeds estimated from pedigree information. Interbull Bulletin, 14, 49–54.Google Scholar
- Meuwissen, T.H.E., 1999. Operation of conservation schemes. Pages 91–112 in Genebanks and the Conservation of Farm Animal Genetic Resources. J. K. Oldenbroek, ed. DLO Inst. Animal Science Health, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Meuwissen, T.H.E. and Wooliams, J.A., 1994. Effective sizes of livestock populations to prevent a decline in fitness. Theoritical and Applied Genetics, 89, 1019–1026.Google Scholar
- Pjontek J., Kadlecik O., Kasarda R. and Horny M., 2012. Pedigree analysis in four Slovak endangered horse breeds. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 57, 54–64.Google Scholar
- Sargolzaei, M., Iwaisaki, H. and Colleau, J.J., 2006. CFC: a tool for monitoring genetic diversity. In: Proceedings in 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production. Belo Horizonte (Brazil). 13–18 August 2006.Google Scholar
- Spalona, A., Renvig, H., Cywa-Benko, K., Zanon, A., Sabbioni, A., Szalay, I., Benkova, J., Baumgartner, J. and Szwaczkowski, T., 2007. Population size in conservation of local chicken breeds in chosen European countries. European Poultry Science, 71, 49–55.Google Scholar
- Verrier, E., Audiot, A., Bertrand, C., Chapuis, H., Charvolin, E., Danchin-Burge, C., Danvy, S., Gourdine, J.L., Gaultier, P., Guémené, D., Laloë, D., Lenoir, H., Leroy. G., Naves, M., Patin, S. and Sabbagh, M., 2015. Assessing the risk status of livestock breeds: a multi-indicator method applied to 178 French local breeds belonging to ten species. Animal Genetic Resources, 57, 105–118.Google Scholar