Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26611262›Full record

ArticleTropical animal health and production2016

Genetic diversity in South African Nguni cattle ecotypes based on microsatellite markers.

Yandisiwe Sanarana, Carina Visser, Lydia Bosman, Khathutshelo Nephawe, Azwihangwisi Maiwashe, Este van Marle-Köster

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Microsatellite Diversity and Phylogenetic Relationships among East EurasianAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yandisiwe SanaranaDepartment of Animal and Wildlife Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, 0028, South Africa.
Carina VisserDepartment of Animal and Wildlife Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, 0028, South Africa.
Lydia BosmanDepartment of Animal and Wildlife Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, 0028, South Africa.
Khathutshelo NephaweDepartment of Animal Science, Tshwane University of Technology, Private Bag X680, Pretoria, 0001, South Africa.
Azwihangwisi MaiwasheAgricultural Research Council, Private Bag X2, Irene, 0062, South Africa.
Este van Marle-KösterDepartment of Animal and Wildlife Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, 0028, South Africa. evm.koster@up.ac.za.
University of Pretoria · ZAAgricultural Research Council of South Africa · ZATshwane University of Technology · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Nguni cattle breed is a landrace breed adapted to different ecological regions of South Africa. A number of ecotypes are recognised based on phenotype within the breed, but it is not known if they are genetically distinct. In this study, molecular characterisation was performed on Makhathini (MAK), Pedi (PED), Shangaan (SHA) and Venda (VEN) Nguni cattle ecotypes. Two Nguni cattle populations, not kept as separate ecotypes, from the University of Fort Hare (UFH) and Agricultural Research Council Loskop South farm (LOS) were also included. Genotypic data was generated for 189 unrelated Nguni cattle selected based on pedigree records using 22 microsatellite markers. The expected heterozygosity values varied from 69 % (UFH) to 72 % (PED) with a mean number of alleles ranging from 6.0 to 6.9. The F ST estimate demonstrated that 4.8 % of the total genetic variation was due to the genetic differentiation between the populations and 92.2 % accounted for differences within the populations. The genetic distances and structure analysis revealed the closest relationship between MAK, PEDI and SHA ecotypes, followed by SHA and VEN. The UFH population clustered with the MAK ecotype, indicating that they are more genetically similar, while the LOS cattle grouped as a distinct cluster. Results suggest that the genetic differentiation between the PED and SHA ecotypes is low and can be regarded as one ecotype based on limited genetic differences. The results of this study can be applied as a point of reference for further genetic studies towards conservation of Nguni cattle ecotypes.

Indexed as

EcotypeAnimalsBreedingCattleFemaleGene-Environment InteractionGenetic VariationMaleMicrosatellite RepeatsPedigreePhenotypeSouth AfricaConservationEcotypesMicrosatellitesPopulation structure

Identifiers

PMID26611262
OpenAlexW2261897515

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.