Person:
Gutiérrez García, Juan Pablo

Profile Picture
First Name
Juan Pablo
Last Name
Gutiérrez García
URI
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/80469
Affiliation
Universidad Complutense de Madrid
Faculty / Institute
Veterinaria
Department
Producción Animal
Area
Producción Animal
Identifiers
UCM identifierORCIDScopus Author IDWeb of Science ResearcherIDDialnet IDGoogle Scholar ID

Filters

20231
Reset filters

Settings

Item Type: Publication × Subject: 636.4 ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Approaching autozygosity in a small pedigree of Gochu Asturcelta pigs
    (Genetics Selection Evolution, 2023) Arias, Katherine D.; Gutiérrez García, Juan Pablo; Fernández, Iván; Álvarez, Isabel; Goyache Goñi, Félix
    Background: In spite of the availability of single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array data, differentiation between observed homozygosity and that caused by mating between relatives (autozygosity) introduces major difficulties. Homozygosity estimators show large variation due to different causes, namely, Mendelian sampling, population structure, and differences among chromosomes. Therefore, the ascertainment of how inbreeding is reflected in the genome is still an issue. The aim of this research was to study the usefulness of genomic information for the assessment of genetic diversity in the highly endangered Gochu Asturcelta pig breed. Pedigree depth varied from 0 (founders) to 4 equivalent discrete generations (t). Four homozygosity parameters (runs of homozygosity, FROH; heterozygosity-rich regions, FHRR; Li and Horvitz’s, FLH; and Yang and colleague’s FYAN) were computed for each individual, adjusted for the variability in the base population (BP; six individuals) and further jackknifed over autosomes. Individual increases in homozygosity (depending on t) and increases in pairwise homozygosity (i.e., increase in the parents’ mean) were computed for each individual in the pedigree, and effective population size (Ne) was computed for five subpopulations (cohorts). Genealogical parameters (individual inbreeding, individual increase in inbreeding, and Ne) were used for comparisons. Results: The mean F was 0.120 ± 0.074 and the mean BP-adjusted homozygosity ranged from 0.099 ± 0.081 (FLH) to 0.152 ± 0.075 (FYAN). After jackknifing, the mean values were slightly lower. The increase in pairwise homozygosity tended to be twofold higher than the corresponding individual increase in homozygosity values. When compared with genealogical estimates, estimates of Ne obtained using FYAN tended to have low root-mean-squared errors. However, Ne estimates based on increases in pairwise homozygosity using both FROH and FHRR estimates of genomic inbreeding had lower root-mean-squared errors. Conclusions: Parameters characterizing homozygosity may not accurately depict losses of variability in small populations in which breeding policy prohibits matings between close relatives. After BP adjustment, the performance of FROH and FHRR was highly consistent. Assuming that an increase in homozygosity depends only on pedigree depth can lead to underestimating it in populations with shallow pedigrees. An increase in pairwise homozygosity computed from either FROH or FHRR is a promising approach for characterizing autozygosity.