Cited by 46Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Relative extended haplotype homozygosity signals across breeds reveal dairy and beef specific signatures of selection

Open access
Bomba, Lorenzo, Nicolazzi, Ezequiel L, Milanesi, Marco, Negrini, Riccardo, Mancini, Giordano, Biscarini, Filippo, Stella, Alessandra, Valentini, Alessio +1 more·2015·Genetics Selection Evolution

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A number of methods are available to scan a genome for selection signatures by evaluating patterns of diversity within and between breeds. Among these, "extended haplotype homozygosity" (EHH) is a reliable approach to detect genome regions under recent selective pressure. The objective of this study was to use this approach to identify regions that are under recent positive selection and shared by the most representative Italian dairy and beef cattle breeds. RESULTS: A total of 3220 animals from Italian Holstein (2179), Italian Brown (775), Simmental (493), Marchigiana (485) and Piedmontese (379) breeds were genotyped with the Illumina BovineSNP50 BeadChip v.1. After standard quality control procedures, genotypes were phased and core haplotypes were identified. The decay of linkage disequilibrium (LD) for each core haplotype was assessed by measuring the EHH. Since accurate estimates of local recombination rates were not available, relative EHH (rEHH) was calculated for each core haplotype. Genomic regions that carry frequent core haplotypes and with significant rEHH values were considered as candidates for recent positive selection. Candidate regions were aligned across to identify signals shared by dairy or beef cattle breeds. Overall, 82 and 87 common regions were detected among dairy and beef cattle breeds, respectively. Bioinformatic analysis identified 244 and 232 genes in these common genomic regions. Gene annotation and pathway analysis showed that these genes are involved in molecular functions that are biologically related to milk or meat production. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a multi-breed approach can lead to the identification of genomic signatures in breeds of cattle that are selected for the same production goal and thus to the localisation of genomic regions of interest in dairy and beef production.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12711-015-0113-9

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bomba, L., Nicolazzi, E. L., Milanesi, M., Negrini, R., Mancini, G., Biscarini, F., Stella, A., Valentini, A., & Ajmone-Marsan, P.
Affiliations
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
  • Parco Tecnologico Padano (IT)
  • Scuola Normale Superiore (IT)
  • Università degli Studi della Tuscia (IT)
Corresponding author
Bomba, Lorenzo
Venue
Genetics Selection Evolution
Published
2015-04-02
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
25-25
ISSN
  • 0999-193X (ISSN-L)
  • 1297-9686
OpenAlex
W2126575387
Cited by
42
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
2.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genetics Selection Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UnitusOpen (Tuscia University) (submittedVersion)
  • PubliCatt (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Fondazione Cariplo
  • Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali
  • Fondazione Banca Popolare di Lodi
  • Regione Lombardia
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
extended haplotype homozygosity, positive selection signatures, dairy cattle, beef cattle, Italian cattle breeds, Holstein, Brown Swiss cattle, Simmental cattle, Marchigiana, Piedmontese, linkage disequilibrium, recombination rate
MeSH terms
Animals, Breeding, Cattle, Dairying, Haplotypes, Homozygote, Male, Meat, Selection, Genetic, Genomics, Molecular Sequence Annotation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review