Süleyman Ercüment ÖNEL, İbrahim CEMAL, Nezih ATA, Onur YILMAZ, Orhan KARACA, Zuhal GÜNDÜZ, Sabri GÜL, Mahmut KESKİN

Microsatellite panels for parentage testing of Kilis goats reared in Turkey

The aim of this study was to develop PCR-based suitable microsatellite marker panels for paternity testing and to definepedigree errors in Kilis goats. A total of 137 head of goats were used, consisting of 118 head of kids and 19 head of possible candidatesires. A total of 392 alleles were observed in 22 microsatellite markers. Allele numbers ranged between 12 (SRCRSP7) and 24 (BM1818,INRA0023, and SRCRSP15) with an average of 17.82. The mean value of the effective allele numbers was obtained as 9.44. The overallpolymorphic information content value was quite high (0.88). The overall observed (Ho) and expected heterozygosity (He) values for allstudied loci were 0.89 and 0.89, respectively. Paternity test panels for the Kilis goat population studied were created based on individualprobability of exclusion of microsatellites in multiplex groups. Combined probability of exclusion (CPE) values for different panelsranged between 0.745 (Panel-1) and 0.9999 (Panel-22), while the combined identification probability (CPI) values were obtained in therange of 9.81 × 10–3 (Panel-1) to 6.96 × 10–21 (Panel-22). As a result of this study, it can be stated that panels with 0.999 CPE values canbe used at the most reasonable cost and with high reliability in paternity tests to be performed in Kilis goats, which can be a referencefor other populations.

PDF

___

1. Baron EE, Martinez ML, Vernequez RS, Coutinho LL. Parentage testing and effect of misidentification on the estimation of breeding value in Gir cattle. Genet Mol Biol 2002; 25: 389-394.
2. Taylor GR. Laboratory Methods for the Detection of Mutations and Polymorphisms in DNA. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 1997.
3. Parlato E, Van Vleck LD. Effect of parentage misidentification on estimates of genetic parameters for milk yield in the Mediterranean Italian buffalo population. J Dairy Sci 2012; 95: 4059-4064.
4. Weller JI, Feldmesser E, Golik M, Tager CI, Domochovsky R, Alus O, Ezra E, Ron M. Factors affecting incorrect paternity assignment in the Israeli Holstein population. J Dairy Sci 2004; 87: 2627-2640.
5. Yılmaz O, Karaca O. Paternity analysis with microsatellite markers in Karya sheep. Kafkas Univ Vet Fac 2012; 18: 807- 813.
6. Yılmaz O. Power of different microsatellite panels for paternity analysis in sheep. Anim Sci Pap Rep 2016; 34: 155-164.
7. Bulut Z, Kurar E, Özşensoy Y, Altınok V, Nizamoğlu M. Usefulness of microsatellite DNA markers for parentage testing for some goat population in Turkey. J Cell Molbiol 2014; 12: 39-45.
8. Karaca O, Yılmaz O, Ata N, Sevim S, Cemal I. Paternity testing for verification of pedigree ınformation obtained from handmated Hair goats. In: Proceedings of International Agricultural Science Congress; Van, Turkey; 2018. p. 147.
9. Miller SA, Dykes DD, Polesky HF. A simple salting out procedure for extracting DNA from human nucleated cells. Nucleic Acids Res 1988; 16: 1215.
10. Montgomery GW, Sise JA. Extraction of DNA from sheep white blood cells. New Zeal J Agr Res 1990; 33: 437-441.
11. FAO. Molecular Genetic Characterization of Animal Genetic Resources. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations; 2011.
12. Hecker KH, Roux KH. High and low annealing temperatures increase both specificity and yield in touchdown and stepdown PCR. Biotechniques 1996; 20: 478-485.
13. Peakall R, Smouse PE. GenAlEx 6.5: Genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research – an update. Bioinformatics 2012; 28: 2537-2539.
14. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LEB, Pemberton JM. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol 1998; 7: 639-655.
15. Brenner C, Morris CJ. Paternity Index Calculations in Single Locus Hypervariable DNA Probes: Validation and Other Studies. PowerStatsV12.xls Computer Software; 1990.
16. Paetkau D, Strobeck C. The molecular basis and evolutionary history of a microsatellite null allele in bears. Mol Ecol 1995; 4: 519-520.
17. Bhat RA, Uddin Reshi M, Beigh SA, Ahad WA, Padder TA, Ganai NA, Andrabi M, Shah RA. Microsatellite marker based DNA fingerprinting for parentage verification in goat breeds of Kashmir. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 2017; 6: 1131-1134.
18. Da Silva EC, McManus CM, Guimarães MPSLM, Gouveia AM, Facó O, Pimentel DM, Caetano AR, Paiva SR. Validation of a microsatellite panel for parentage testing of locally adapted and commercial goats in Brazil. Genet Mol Biol 2014; 37: 54- 60.
19. Tefiel H, Ata N, Chahbar M, Benyarou M, Fantezi K, Yılmaz O, Cemal I, Karaca O, Boudouma D, Gaouar SBS. Genetic characterization of four Algerian goat breeds assessed by microsatellite markers. Small Rumin Res 2018; 160: 65-71.
20. Garritsen C, Van Marle-Köster E, Snyman MA, Visser C. The impact of DNA parentage verification on breeding value estimation and sire ranking in South African Angora goats. Small Rumin Res 2015; 124: 30-37.
21. Siwek M, Knol EF. Parental reconstruction in rural goat population with microsatellite markers. Ital J Anim Sci 2010; 9: 260-264
22. Bolormaa S, Ruvinsky A, Walkden Brown S, Van der Werf J. DNA-based parentage verification in two Australian goat herds. Small Rumin Res 2008; 80: 95-100.
23. Dakin EE, Avise JC. Microsatellite null alleles in parentage analysis. Heredity 2004; 93: 504-509.
24. Luikart G, Biju-Duval MP, Ertuğrul O, Zagdsuren Y, Maudet C, Taberlet P. Power of 22 microsatellite markers in fluorescent multiplexes for parentage testing in goats (Capra hircus). Anim Genet 1999; 30: 431-438.
25. Van Eenennaam AL, Weaber RL, Drake DJ, Penedo MCT, Quaas RL, Garrick DJ, Pollak EJ. DNA-based paternity analysis and genetic evaluation in a large, commercial cattle ranch setting. J Anim Sci 2007; 85: 3159-3169.
26. ISAG. Applied genetics in sheep and goats workshop. In: Proceedings of 32nd International Conference on Animal Genetics; Edinburgh, UK; 2010.
27. Ganai NA, Yadav BR. Parentage determination in three breeds of Indian goat using heterologous microsatellite markers. In: Makkar HPS, Viljoen GJ, editors. Applications of Gene-Based Technologies for Improving Animal Production and Health in Developing Countries. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2005. pp. 613-620.
28. Glowatzki-Mullis ML, Muntwyler J, Gaillard C. Cost-effective parentage verification with 17-plex PCR for goats and 19-plex PCR for sheep. Anim Genet 2007; 38: 86-88.
29. MAPA. White Paper. Brasilia, Brazil: Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Food Supply; 2004.
30. Waits LP, Luikart G, Taberlet P. Estimating the probability of identity among genotypes in natural populations: cautions and guidelines. Mol Ecol 2001; 10: 249-256.