Advertisement

Tropical Animal Health and Production

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 561–567 | Cite as

Population structure of Mazandaran native fowls using pedigree analysis

  • Mohsen GholizadehEmail author
Regular Articles
  • 119 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Effective population size Genetic diversity Inbreeding Indigenous chickens 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. Abebe, A.S., Mikko, S. and Johansson, A.M., 2015. Genetic diversity of five local Swedish chicken breeds detected by microsatellite markers. PLoS ONE, 10, e0120580.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bernardes, P.A., Grossi, D.A., Savegnago, R.P., Buzanskas, M.E., Ramos, S.B., Romanzini, E.P., Guidolin, D.G.F., Bezerra, L.A.F., Lôbo, R.B. and Munari, D.P., 2016. Population structure of Tabapuã beef cattle using pedigree analysis. Livestock Science, 187, 96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boichard, D., Maignel, L. and Verrier, É., 1997. The value of using probabilities of gene origin to measure genetic variability in a population. Genetic Selection Evolution. 29, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caballero, A., 1994. Developments in the prediction of effective populationsize. Heredity, 73, 657–679.Google Scholar
  6. Cervantes, I., Goyache, F., Molina, A.,Valera, M. and Gutiérrez, J.P., 2008. Application of individual increase in inbreeding to estimate effective sizes from real pedigrees. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 125, 301–310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. FAO., 2007. Global plan of action for animal genetic resources and the Interlaken declaration. FAO, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  10. Graczyk, M., Andres, K., Kapkowska, E. and Szwaczkowski, T., 2015. Pedigree analyses of the Zatorska goose population. Czech Journal of Animal Science, 60, 513–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gutiérrez, J.P. and Goyache, F., 2005. A note on ENDOG: a computer program for analyzing pedigree information. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 122, 172–176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gutiérrez, J.P., Cervantes, I., Molina, A., Valera, M. and Goyache, F., 2008. Individual increase in inbreeding allows estimating realised effective sizes from pedigrees. Genetic Selection Evolution, 40, 359–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gutiérrez, J.P., Cervantes, I. and Goyache, F. 2009. Improving the estimation of realized effective population sizes in farm animals. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 126, 327–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hill, W.G., 1979. A note on effective population size with overlapping generations. Genetics, 92, 317–322.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Honda, T., Fujii, T., Nomura, T. and Mukai, F., 2006. Evaluation of genetic diversity in Japanese Brown cattle population by pedigree analysis. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 126, 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lacy, R.C., 1989. Analysis of founder representation in pedigrees: founder equivalent and founder genome equivalents. Zoo Biology, 8, 111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Magalhães Araújo Da Silva, M.H., Malhado, C.H., Costa Jl, J.R., Cobuci, J.A., Costa, C.N. and Carneiro, P.L., 2016. Population genetic structure in the Holstein breed in Brazil. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 48, 331–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Marquez, G.C., Siegel, P.B. and Lewis, R.M., 2010. Genetic diversity and population structure in lines of chickens divergently selected for high and low 8-week body weight. Poultry Science, 89, 2580–2588.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Martínez, R.A., García, D., Gallego, J.L., Onofre, G., Pérez, J. and Cañón, J., 2008. Genetic variability in Colombian Creole cattle populations estimated by pedigree information. Journal of Animal Science, 86, 545–552.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Meuwissen, T.I. and Luo, Z., 1992. Computing inbreeding coefficients in large populations. Genetic Selection Evolution, 24, 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Pham, M.H., Tran, X.H., Berthouly-Salazar, C., Tixier-Boichard, M., Chen, C.F. and Lee, Y.P., 2016. Monitoring of genetic diversity in Taiwan conserved chickens assessed by pedigree and molecular data. Livestock Science, 184, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Verrier, E., Colleau, J. J. And Foulley, J. L., 1993. Long-term effects of selection based on the animal model BLUP in a finite population. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 87, 446–454.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Wright, S., 1922. Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. The American Naturalist, 56, 330–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wright, S. (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 16, 97–159.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Animal and Aquatic ScienceSari Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources UniversitySariIran

Personalised recommendations