Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:01:40.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conservation genetics of UK livestock: from molecules to management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2018

M.W. Bruford
M.W. Bruford*
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, PO Box 915, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3TL, UK
Get access

Abstract

Analysis of molecular genetic diversity in livestock potentially allows for rational management of genetic resources experiencing the serious pressures now facing the livestock sector. The potentially damaging effects of genetic erosion are an ongoing threat, both through loss of breeding stock during the 2001 FMD crisis and potentially as a result of the ongoing National Scrapie Plan. These factors and an increasing focus through the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) on the conservation of animal genetic resources force us to consider seriously how to measure, monitor and conserve diversity throughout the genomes of livestock. Currently debated ways to optimally conserve livestock diversity, particularly the ‘Weitzman Approach’, may fail to take into account the significance of within-breed genetic diversity and its structuring, and apply relatively simplistic models to predict the probability of extinction for breeds over defined periods of time under certain management scenarios. In this paper I argue, using examples from our work and that of others, that within-breed diversity, in particular, should not be ignored when conserving livestock diversity, since breeds may be genetically structured at a variety of scales and there is little evidence for a convincing relationship between effective population size and genetic diversity within rare UK breeds. Furthermore, until we understand the population genetic forces that shape diversity in breeds in more detail, using raw indices of genetic variation or distances to rank or prioritise breeds in terms of some notional threat of extinction has questionable conservation value.

Type
Section 2: Quantitative and molecular genetic basis for conservation
Information
BSAP Occasional Publication , Volume 30: Farm Animal Genetic Resources , 2004 , pp. 151 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnold, M., Meek, C., Webb, C.R., Hoinville, L.J. 2002. Assessing the efficacy of a ram-genotyping programme to reduce susceptibility to scrapie in Great Britain. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 56: 227–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avise, J.C., Walker, D. 2000. Abandon all species concepts? Conservation Genetics 1: 77–80.Google Scholar
Barratt, E.M., Gurnell, J., Malarky, G., Deaville, R. and Bruford, M.W. 1999. Genetic Structure of fragmented populations of red squirrel (Sciurus vulgaris) in Britain. Molecular Ecolology S12: 55–65.Google Scholar
Beaumont, M.A. 1999. Detecting population and expansion using microsatellites. Genetics 153: 2013–2029.Google Scholar
Beaumont, M.A. and Bruford, M.W. 1999. Microsatellites in conservation genetics. In: Microsatellites: Evolution and Applications. Edited by Goldstein, DB and Schlötterer, C, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. pp. 165–182.Google Scholar
Bertorelle, G. and Excoffier, L. 1998. Inferring admixture proportions from molecular data. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15: 1298–1311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blott, S.C., Williams, J.L. and Haley, C.S. 1998a. Genetic variation within the Hereford breed of cattle. Animal Genetics 29: 202–211.Google Scholar
Blott, S.C., Williams, J.L. and Haley, C.S. 1998b. Genetic relationship among European cattle breeds. Animal Genetics 29: 273–282.Google Scholar
Bossers, A., Belt, P.B.G.M., Raymond, G.J., Caughley, B., De Vries, R. and Smits, M.A. 1997. Scrapie susceptibility-linked polymorphisms modulate the in vitro conversion of sheep prion protein to protease resistant forms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 94: 4931–4936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruford, M.W. and Wayne, R.K. 1993. Microsatellites and their application to population genetic studies. Current Opinion in Genetics and Development 3: 939–943.Google Scholar
Byrne, K., Chikhi, L., Townsend, S.J., Cruickshank, R.H., Alderson, G.L.H. and Bruford, M.W. 2004. Extreme genetic diversity within and among European sheep types and its implications for breed conservation. Molecular Ecology. In press.Google Scholar
Chikhi, L., Bruford, M.W. and Beaumont, M.A. 2001. Estimation of Admixture Proportions: A likelihood-based approach using Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Genetics 158: 1347–1362.Google Scholar
Coulson, T., Mace, G.M., Hudson, E. and Possingham, H. 2001. The use and abuse of population viability analysis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 16: 219–221.Google Scholar
Crandall, K.A., Bininda-Emonds, O.R.P., Mace, G.M., Wayne, R.K. 2000. Considering evolutionary processes in conservation biology. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 15: 290–295.Google Scholar
Cunningham, E.P., Meghen, C.M. 2001. Biological identification systems: genetic markers. Revue scientifique et technique 20: 491–499.Google Scholar
Dawson, K. and Belkhir, K. 2001. A Bayesian approach to the identification of panmictic populations and the assignment of individuals. Genetic Research 78: 59–77.Google Scholar
Diez-Tascón, C., Littlejohn, R.P., Almeida, P.A.R. and Crawford, A.M. 2000. Genetic variation within the Merino sheep breed: analysis of closely related populations using microsatellites. Animal Genetics. 31: 243–251.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erwin, T.L. 1991. An evolutionary basis for conservation strategies. Science 253: 750–752.Google Scholar
Frankham, R.J., Ballou, J.D. and Briscoe, D.A. 2002. Introduction to Conservation Genetics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Freking, B.A., Keele, J.W., Beattie, C.W., Kappes, S.M., Smith, T.P., Sonstegard, T.S., Nielsen, M.K., Leymaster, K.A. 1998. Evaluation of the ovine callipyge locus: I. Relative chromosomal position and gene action. Journal of Animal Science 76: 2062–2071.Google Scholar
Groombridge, J.J., Jones, C.G., Bruford, M.W. and Nichols, R.A. 2000. Ghost alleles in the Mauritius kestrel. Nature 403: 616.Google Scholar
Hanotte, O., Bradley, D.G., Ochieng, J.W., Verjee, Y., Hill, E.W. and Rege, J.E.O. 2002. African pastoralism: genetic imprints of origins and migrations. Science 296: 336–339.Google Scholar
Hanslik, S., Harr, B., Brem, G., Schlötterer, C. 2000. Microsatellite analysis reveals substantial genetic differentiation between contemporary New World and Old World Holstein Friesian populations. Animal Genetics 31: 31–38.Google Scholar
Heaton, M.P., Harhay, G.P., Bennett, G.L., Stone, R.T., Grosse, W.M., Casas, E., Keele, J.W., Smith, T.P., Chitko-McKown, C.G., Laegreid, W.W. 2002. Selection and use of SNP markers for animal identification and paternity analysis in US beef cattle. Mammalian Genome 13: 272–281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendry, A.P., Vamosi, S.M., Latham, S.J., Heilbuth, J.C., Day, T. 2000. Questioning species realities. Conservation Genetics 1: 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irwin, D.M., Kocher, T.D. and Wilson, A.C. 1991. Evolution of the cytochrome-b gene of mammals. Journal of Molecular Evolution 32: 128–144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kadwel, I M., Fernandez, M., Stanley, H.F., Wheeler, J.C., Rosadio, R. and Bruford, M.W. 2001. Genetic analysis reveals the wild ancestors of the llama and alpaca. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268: 2575–2584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, L.F., Jeffery, K.J., Arcese, P., Beaumont, M.A., Hochachka, W.M., Smith, J.N.M. and Bruford, M.W. 2001. Immigration and the Ephemerality of a Natural Population Bottleneck: Evidence from Molecular Markers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 268: 1387–1394.Google Scholar
Keller, L.F., and Waller, D.M.. 2002. Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 17:230–241.Google Scholar
Kraaijeveld, K. 2000. The phylogenetic species concept and its place in modern evolutionary thinking. Ardea 88: 265–267.Google Scholar
Loftus, R.T., Ertugrul, O., Habra, A.H., El-Barody, M.A., MacHugh, D.E., Park, S.D.E. and Bradley, D.G. 1999. A microsatellite survey of cattle from a centre of origin: the Near East. Molecular Ecology 8: 2015–2022.Google Scholar
Luikart, G., Gielly, L., Excoffier, L., Vigne, J-D., Bouvet, J. and Taberlet, P. 2001. Multiple maternal origins and weak phylogeographic structure in domestic goats. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 98: 5927–5932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luikart, G. and Cornuet, J.M. 1998. Empirical evaluation of a test for identifying recently bottlenecked populations from allele frequency data. Conservation Biology 12: 228–237.Google Scholar
MacHugh, D.E., Loftus, R.T., Bradley, D.G., Sharp, P.M. and Cunningham, P. 1994. Microsatellite DNA variation within and among European cattle breeds. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 256: 25–31.Google Scholar
MacHugh, D.E., Shriver, M.D., Loftus, R.T., Cunningham, P. and Bradley, D.G. 1997. Microsatellite DNA variation and the evolution, domestication and phylogeography of taurine and Zebu cattle (Bos taurus and Bos indicus) Genetics 146: 1071–1086.Google Scholar
MacHugh, D.E., Loftus, R.T., Cunningham, P. and Bradley, D.G. 1998. Genetic structure of seven European cattle breeds assessed using 20 microsatellite markers. Animal Genetics 29: 333–340.Google Scholar
MacHugh, D.E. and Bradley, D.G. 2001. Livestock domestic origins: goats buck the trend. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 98: 5382–5384.Google Scholar
Madsen, T., Shine, R., M., Olsson, and Wittzell, H.. 1999. Restoration of an inbred adder population. Nature 402:34–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moritz, C. 1994a. Applications of mitochondrial DNA analysis in conservation - a critical review. Molecular Ecolology 3: 401–411.Google Scholar
Moritz, C. 1994b. Defining evolutionary significant units for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9: 373–375.Google Scholar
Ryder, O.A. 1986. Species conservation and systematics: the dilemma of subspecies. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 1: 9–10.Google Scholar
Simianer, H., Marti, S.B., Gibson, J., Hanotte, O. and Rege, J.E.O. 2003. An approach to the optimal allocation of conservation funds to minimize loss of genetic diversity in livestock breeds. Environment and Development Economics 45: 377–392.Google Scholar
Troy, C.S., MacHugh, D.E., Bailey, J.F., Magee, D.A., Loftus, R.T., Cunningham, P., Chamberlain, A.T., Sykes, B.C. and Bradley, D.G. 2001. Genetic evidence for near-east origins of European cattle. Nature 410: 1088–1091.Google Scholar
Vane Wright, R.I., Humphries, C.J., Williams, P.H. 1991. What to protect – systematics and the agony of choice. Biological Conservation 55: 235–254.Google Scholar
Vankan, D.M. and Faddy, M.J. 1999. Estimations of the efficacy and reliability of paternity assignments from DNA microsatellite analysis of multiple-sire matings. Animal Genetics 30: 355–361.Google Scholar
Vilà, C., Savolainen, P., Maldonado, J.E., Amorim, I.R., Rice, J.E., Honeycutt, R.L., Crandall, K.A., Lundberg, J. and Wayne, R.K. 1997. Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog. Science 276: 1687–1689.Google Scholar
Visscher, P.M., Smith, D., Hall, S.J., Williams, J.L. 2001. A viable herd of genetically uniform cattle. Nature 410: 36.Google Scholar
Visscher, P.M., Woolliams, J.A., Smith, D., Williams, J.L. 2002. Estimation of pedigree errors in the UK dairy population using microsatellite markers and the impact on selection. Journal of Dairy Science 85: 2368–2375.Google Scholar
Vogler, A.P., DeSalle, R. 1994. Diagnosing units of conservation management. Conservation Biology 8: 354–363.Google Scholar
Weitzman, S. 1992. On diversity. Quarterly Journal of Economcis 107: 363–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar