Cited by 125Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsGenetic diversity and population structure

Genome-Wide Scan for Selection Signatures in Six Cattle Breeds in South Africa

Open access
Makina, Sithembile O., Muchadeyi, Farai C., van Marle-Köster, Este, Taylor, Jerry F., Makgahlela, Mahlako L., Maiwashe, Azwihangwisi·2015·Genetics Selection Evolution

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The detection of selection signatures in breeds of livestock species can contribute to the identification of regions of the genome that are, or have been, functionally important and, as a consequence, have been targeted by selection. METHODS: This study used two approaches to detect signatures of selection within and between six cattle breeds in South Africa, including Afrikaner (n = 44), Nguni (n = 54), Drakensberger (n = 47), Bonsmara (n = 44), Angus (n = 31) and Holstein (n = 29). The first approach was based on the detection of genomic regions in which haplotypes have been driven towards complete fixation within breeds. The second approach identified regions of the genome that had very different allele frequencies between populations (F ST). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Forty-seven candidate genomic regions were identified as harbouring putative signatures of selection using both methods. Twelve of these candidate selected regions were shared among the breeds and ten were validated by previous studies. Thirty-three of these regions were successfully annotated and candidate genes were identified. Among these genes the keratin genes (KRT222, KRT24, KRT25, KRT26, and KRT27) and one heat shock protein gene (HSPB9) on chromosome 19 between 42,896,570 and 42,897,840 bp were detected for the Nguni breed. These genes were previously associated with adaptation to tropical environments in Zebu cattle. In addition, a number of candidate genes associated with the nervous system (WNT5B, FMOD, PRELP, and ATP2B), immune response (CYM, CDC6, and CDK10), production (MTPN, IGFBP4, TGFB1, and AJAP1) and reproductive performance (ADIPOR2, OVOS2, and RBBP8) were also detected as being under selection. CONCLUSIONS: The results presented here provide a foundation for detecting mutations that underlie genetic variation of traits that have economic importance for cattle breeds in South Africa.

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/s12711-015-0173-x

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • In African cattle, genomic selection signatures have been identified in genes involved in antigen response, keratin formation, light coat color, and sebum secretion.

    “In African cattle, genomic selection signatures have been identified in genes involved in antigen response (BoLA, SLC25A48), keratin formation (KRT33A, KRT222, KRT24, KRT25, KRT26, KRT27, TGM1, TGM3), light coat color (MLPH), and sebum secretion (MC5R) [81,82,99,103].”

    From The Genomic Landscape of Cattle: Domestication, Dispersal, and Adaptive Evolution (2026) · cites this paper as [103]

    The Results and Discussion (page unavailable) identify selection signatures involving SLC25A48 in antigen recognition and KRT222 and KRT24–27 in keratin formation. The copy does not identify the other named genes—BoLA, KRT33A, TGM1, TGM3, MLPH, or MC5R—as selected; its coat-colour finding concerns MC1R, not MLPH, and it does not report sebum secretion. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Makina, S. O., Muchadeyi, F. C., van Marle-Köster, E., Taylor, J. F., Makgahlela, M. L., & Maiwashe, A.
Affiliations
  • Animal Production Institute (ZA)
  • Agricultural Research Council of South Africa (ZA)
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • University of the Free State (ZA)
Corresponding author
Makina, Sithembile O.
Venue
Genetics Selection Evolution
Published
2015-11-26
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
92-92
ISSN
  • 0999-193X (ISSN-L)
  • 1297-9686
OpenAlex
W2177200217
Cited by
125
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3
FWCI
5.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Genetics Selection Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 diversity and population structure
Keywords
selection signatures, cattle breeds, Afrikaners, Nguni, Bonsmara, Angus cattle, Holstein, FST, keratin genes, tropical adaptation, candidate genes, immune response genes
MeSH terms
Alleles, Animals, Breeding, Cattle, Gene Frequency, Genetic Markers, Haplotypes, Selection, Genetic, South Africa, Genome, Computational Biology, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Genomics, Chromosomes, Mammalian, Quantitative Trait Loci, Genome-Wide Association Study, Genetic Association Studies

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