Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29642838›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2018

Trends in genome-wide and region-specific genetic diversity in the Dutch-Flemish Holstein-Friesian breeding program from 1986 to 2015.

Harmen P Doekes, Roel F Veerkamp, Piter Bijma, Sipke J Hiemstra, Jack J Windig

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Restructuring breeding programs 1: Integration of diversity.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Harmen P DoekesAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. harmen.doekes@wur.nl.
Roel F VeerkampAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Piter BijmaAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Sipke J HiemstraCentre for Genetic Resources the Netherlands, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Jack J WindigAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs KB-12-005.03.001Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs WOT-03-003-056Horizon 2020 - Societal Challenges - Research & Innovation Action (RIA) - Innovative Management of Animal Genetic Resources (IMAGE) No 677353
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn recent decades, Holstein-Friesian (HF) selection schemes have undergone profound changes, including the introduction of optimal contribution selection (OCS; around 2000), a major shift in breeding goal composition (around 2000) and the implementation of genomic selection (GS; around 2010). These changes are expected to have influenced genetic diversity trends. Our aim was to evaluate genome-wide and region-specific diversity in HF artificial insemination (AI) bulls in the Dutch-Flemish breeding program from 1986 to 2015.

methodsPedigree and genotype data (~ 75.5 k) of 6280 AI-bulls were used to estimate rates of genome-wide inbreeding and kinship and corresponding effective population sizes. Region-specific inbreeding trends were evaluated using regions of homozygosity (ROH). Changes in observed allele frequencies were compared to those expected under pure drift to identify putative regions under selection. We also investigated the direction of changes in allele frequency over time.

resultsEffective population size estimates for the 1986-2015 period ranged from 69 to 102. Two major breakpoints were observed in genome-wide inbreeding and kinship trends. Around 2000, inbreeding and kinship levels temporarily dropped. From 2010 onwards, they steeply increased, with pedigree-based, ROH-based and marker-based inbreeding rates as high as 1.8, 2.1 and 2.8% per generation, respectively. Accumulation of inbreeding varied substantially across the genome. A considerable fraction of markers showed changes in allele frequency that were greater than expected under pure drift. Putative selected regions harboured many quantitative trait loci (QTL) associated to a wide range of traits. In consecutive 5-year periods, allele frequencies changed more often in the same direction than in opposite directions, except when comparing the 1996-2000 and 2001-2005 periods.

conclusionsGenome-wide and region-specific diversity trends reflect major changes in the Dutch-Flemish HF breeding program. Introduction of OCS and the shift in breeding goal were followed by a drop in inbreeding and kinship and a shift in the direction of changes in allele frequency. After introduction of GS, rates of inbreeding and kinship increased substantially while allele frequencies continued to change in the same direction as before GS. These results provide insight in the effect of breeding practices on genomic diversity and emphasize the need for efficient management of genetic diversity in GS schemes.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationQuantitative Trait LociAnimalsBreedingCattleGene FrequencyGenetic DriftGenomeHomozygoteInbreedingInsemination, ArtificialMaleModels, GeneticPedigreePopulation DensitySelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID29642838
PMCPMC5896142

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.