|
|
||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANIMAL GENETICS |

,2
,

* Grup de Recerca en Remugants,
and
Servei Veterinari de Genètica Molecular,
and
Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain; and
and
Associació Nacional de Criadors dOvins de Raça Ripollesa, 17121 Monells, Girona, Spain
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Key Words: birth weight conception rate litter size prion protein Ripollesa breed sheep
| INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Breeding for scrapie resistance has been recently considered an attractive strategy to control this disease (Arnold et al., 2002
). Indeed, selection for the ARR haplotype has been established by the European Commission (Commission Decision, 2003
/100/CE) and the US government (Department of Agriculture, 2001
), to increase the scrapie resistance of sheep breeds. Notwithstanding, breeding for PrP genotype could apply a high selection pressure on chromosome 13, but little is known about potential correlated effects on production or reproduction traits. Some studies have suggested an association among PrP haplotypes and litter size (Brandsma et al., 2004
) and lamb BW at different ages (Buitkamp et al., 2003
; Brandsma et al., 2004
), although contradictory results have been reported (Roden et al., 2001
; Ponz et al., 2004
). In this regard, disagreement exists about the suitability of fixation or removal of the PrP, due to the possible correlated influences on production or reproductive traits.
The aim of this research was to analyze the association between PrP haplotypes and reproduction and lamb BW traits to investigate the effects of the PrP locus and to update the selection aims within the Ripollesa meat sheep breed.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Genotyped Animals
The Ripollesa is a Spanish indigenous sheep breed of medium frame (ewes, 50 to 65 kg of BW; rams 75 to 90 kg of BW), exploited under semiintensive Mediterranean conditions for the production of light Pascual-type lambs (22 to 24 kg of BW at slaughter) in Catalonia, Spain. Since 1986, the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (Bellaterra, Spain) has kept a purebred Ripollesa flock with a size of approximately 100 ewes. After 1993, and with the exception of 2 rams bought in 1997, the flock was closed, with all subsequent ewe and ram replacements generated within the flock, after following a phenotypic selection program for litter size.
In 2004, all adult individuals (7 rams and 114 ewes) and 189 lambs born during the fall-lambing season of 2004 and 2005 were genotyped for the PrP locus. Blood samples from each animal were collected by jugular venipuncture into EDTA-coated Vacutainer tubes (Becton Dickinson Co., Franklin Lakes, NJ). The polymorphisms at codons 136, 154, and 171 of the PrP gene were determined by SNaPshot Multiplex analysis (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA) according to the methodology of Álvarez et al. (2006a)
. Analyses were performed in the laboratories of the Servei Veterinari de Genètica Molecular (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain) and Laboratorio Central Veterinario (Algete, Madrid, Spain). In addition, the genotypes of 24 historical animals were reconstructed from the knowledge that both parents were homozygous for the PrP locus.
Traits Analyzed and Operational Models
Two reproduction traits were considered (i.e., conception rate and litter size). Conception rate was scored with 1 if the ewe lambed during a given lambing season or 0 if it failed to lamb. Litter size was defined as 1 or 2, for single or multiple births, respectively. Triplet births were grouped with twin births due to their low incidence (2.7%). The model of analysis for both traits included the infinitesimal genetic effect of each animal (ai), as well as several nongenetic sources of variation: random permanent environment characterized by the ewe (pi); ewe age at lambing (EAj) with 5 categories following in part the ones stated by Matos et al. (1997)
and Altarriba et al. (1998
; i.e.,
2, 3, 4, 5, and
6 yr); and year of lambing (YLk) with 7 levels (<2000<2000<2001<2002<2003<2004, and 2005). The genetic effect of each PrP haplotype was also included as a covariate with the number of copies of each haplotype, 0, 1, or 2 (ARRi, ARQi, and ARHi). Note that we assumed an additive model following in part the standard model of Falconer and Mackay (1996)
. Within the threshold methodology framework, the operational model was
![]() |
where µ was the population mean; ßARR, ßARQ, and ßARH were the corresponding regression coefficients for each PrP haplotype; and µijkl was the value of the underlying variable related to the observed categorical trait (conception rate or litter size) by thresholds, as defined by Wright (1934)
. Birth BW and 90-d BW were also analyzed although under a linear animal model. The operational models for these traits included the sex of the lamb (SXm) and the type of suckling (single or multiple; TSn) in addition to the effects previously defined for reproductive traits. The birth BW was also considered as a covariate (ßBBWBBWi within the 90-d BW model. The operational model was
![]() |
where yijklmno was the birth BW (
= 0) or 90-d BW (
= 1) phenotypic record.
Bayesian Statistical Analysis
All traits were analyzed under univariate animal models solved through a Bayesian approach. More specifically, birth BW and 90-d BW were assumed to follow a multivariate normal distribution y
N(W
, I
2e), where y was the vector of phenotypic values, W was an incidence matrix relating systematic effects (ß), permanent environmental effects (p), and additive genetic effects (a), represented by the vector
' = [ß' p' a'], I was an identity matrix, and
2e was the residual variance. Prior distributions for the infinitesimal genetic effects (a) and permanent environmental effects (p) were described as multivariate normal densities:
![]() |
where A was the numerator relationship matrix, and
2a and
2p represented the additive genetic and permanent environmental variances, respectively. Proper uniform priors between adequate values were defined for the ß systematic effects and variance components.
On the other hand, conception rate and litter size were analyzed using the threshold procedure described by Sorensen et al. (1995)
. This methodology related the discrete phenotypic observation with an underlying continuous variable, also called liability (u). Liability was assumed multivariate normal, u
N(W
, I
2e), and the remaining parameters of the model were fitted as for the linear traits described previously, with the exception of
2e being fixed at 1, and the threshold between the 2 phenotypic categories being fixed at zero in the unobservable scale (Sorensen et al., 1995
).
Marginal posterior distributions of all parameters were obtained using the Gibbs sampler (Gelfand and Smith, 1990
). Note that Gibbs iterations for threshold models required an extra step known as data augmentation (Tanner and Wong, 1987
) that allowed the inclusion of liability as an unknown parameter in the model (Sorensen et al., 1995
). In the present work, the Gibbs sampler ran with a single chain of 100,000 points, and the first 10,000 were discarded as burn-in, previously tested by the Raftery and Lewis (1996)
methodology.
Our Bayesian approach considered the marginal posterior distribution of the differences between each pair of additive effects (ßARR ßARQ, ßARR ßARH, and ßARQ ßARH). In this case, the posterior probability above or below zero was the probability of a difference bigger or smaller than zero, respectively, given the data. Substantial evidence of dissimilarity between the additive effect of 2 haplotypes was assumed when the null difference was not included within the 95% greatest posterior density interval. Although prior distributions have an important role in the inference of the posterior distribution, the prior information for the systematic effects of our models was vague with null or very low influence in the posterior distributions. Moreover, the inference was focused in the systematic effects characterized by the PrP haplotypes, considering as nuisance parameters the rest of unknowns of the model. For this reason, the posterior inference was robust.
| RESULTS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
|
|
|
| DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The effect of the different PrP haplotypes on conception rate and litter size was tested. The differences between additive effects on conception rate were null. This fact could be related to the low heritabilities reported for this trait (Fogarty, 1995
). On the other hand, our analysis reported notable differences between haplotypes for litter size. The ARH haplotype showed a positive effect in contrast to the ARQ haplotype, and also seemed advantageous in relation to the ARR haplotype, showing that selection favorable to the ARH haplotype might increase litter size in our flock. Note that the ARH haplotype is usually associated with a substantial degree of genetic resistance to scrapie (Woolhouse et al., 2001
). Predicted incidence of multiple births, calculated as indicated in the appendix, might be greater for ARH heterozygous ewes (0.62) than for ARR (0.59) and ARQ homozygous ewes (0.58), suggesting a genetic influence linked to PrP haplotype. The predicted incidence of multiple births was not estimated for ARH homozygous ewes because we had no ARH homozygous ewes genotyped in our flock, and then, the reported advantage of the ARH haplotype may also include dominance effects (Figure 1
). The magnitude of the litter size increase was in accordance with the results reported by Alexander et al. (2005)
in the Suffolk breed, although these authors compared the ARR haplotype with all the remaining ones.
Several authors have described influences of the PrP locus on ewe litter size although different haplotypes have been reported as favorable in the different breeds analyzed. Our results are in accordance with Ponz et al. (2004)
who found a slight genetic advantage for ewes with the ARH haplotype in the Rasa Aragonesa breed, which is geographically close to the Ripollesa breed. On the other hand, Brandsma et al. (2004)
suggested a slight advantage for the ARR haplotype in the Texel breed, although they analyzed ARH and ARQ haplotypes jointly, within the same category. Alexander et al. (2005)
reported the opposite effect in the Suffolk breed, and no significant influences in Columbia, Rambouillet, and Hampshire sheep. Similarly, De Vries et al. (2005)
also reported no significant effects of PrP haplotypes on ewe prolificacy. As a whole, although pleiotropy of the PrP gene has been suggested as a putative mechanism to influence litter size, the discrepancies between previously published results (Brandsma et al., 2004
; Ponz et al., 2004
; Alexander et al., 2005
) suggest that this hypothesis may be wrong. It seems more reasonable to assume that genetic influences might proceed from a gene closely linked to the PrP locus, within the ovine chromosome 13.
The PrP haplotypes did not modify birth BW and 90-d BW in the Ripollesa breed (Table 3
). Although litter size greatly influences lamb birth BW, associations between PrP haplotypes and this trait have not been detected, in contrast with the results corresponding to ewe litter size. Besides, litter size was included as a systematic effect within the birth BW model. The absence of association with the 90-d BW of Ripollesa lambs is in accordance with the results reported for lamb BW at different ages in Suffolk (Roden et al., 2001
). On the contrary, Buitkamp et al. (2003)
reported a positive effect of the ARR haplotype on ADG of Merino lambs, although similar differences could not be detected in Blackface and Suffolk lambs. Significant influences also were reported by Brandsma et al. (2004)
who observed a reduction of the BW at 135 d in the Texel breed associated with the ARR haplotype.
Recent legislation of the European Union recommended selection for ARR haplotype as a measure to increase the genetic resistance of sheep breeds to scrapie. Unfortunately, our results show that the fixation of the ARR haplotype may reduce the reproductive performance of the Ripollesa ewe, due to the loss of the ARH haplotype. Although future studies are necessary to determine if our results could be extrapolated to the entire Ripollesa population, they contribute vital information for the breeding program of this breed. They also show that marker-assisted selection using the PrP locus would be an additional tool for ewe prolificacy improvement if current legislation allowed selection favorable to the ARH haplotype.
| IMPLICATIONS |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| APPENDIX |
|---|
|
|
|---|
N(W
, I
2e), the probabilities to achieve a multiple birth under the influence of the jth (PMBj) or kth (PMBk) scalar elements in the vector
, both corresponding to mutually exclusive categories of the same systematic effect S, are
![]() |
where w'S is the incidence vector of
S, both with all elements belonging to the categories of S excluded; and
j and
k are the jth and kth scalar elements in the vector
, respectively. Note that the threshold for liability has been fitted to zero according to Sorensen et al. (1995)
. The advantage of
j with respect to
k in the observable scale can be characterized as the difference PMBj PMBk, although it is highly influenced by the incidence assumed for the remaining systematic, permanent, and additive genetic effects (w'S
S). In this sense, PMBj PMBk reaches its greatest value when w'S
S +
k = (
j
k)/2, whereas it becomes zero when w'S
S tends to infinity. As a whole, this approach may only be useful if we can define a representative incidence of the remaining systematic effects.
To compare the effect of
j and
k in the observable scale and bypassing the subjectivity of an assumed and unique w'S, we can predict twice the liability value for each record i of our data set, taking its own w'i,S and assuming the influence of
j (ui,j) and
k (ui,k) separately. It can be estimated as:
![]() |
Thus, we obtain 2 liability sets, one under the influence of
j and the other receiving the
k effect. Considering that the threshold for liability has been fitted to zero, we can calculate the predicted incidence of multiple births as the frequency above zero liabilities for each data set. The difference between both data sets predicts the advantage or disadvantage of
j with respect to
k for the characteristic incidence of systematic, permanent, and additive genetic effects of our population.
| Footnotes |
|---|
2 Corresponding author: gerardo.caja{at}uab.es
Received for publication May 12, 2006. Accepted for publication October 17, 2006.
| LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. M. Sawalha, S. Brotherstone, N. R. Lambe, and B. Villanueva Association of the prion protein gene with individual tissue weights in Scottish Blackface sheep J Anim Sci, August 1, 2008; 86(8): 1737 - 1746. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |