4.4 Article

Genome-wide association study for intramuscular fat deposition and composition in Nellore cattle

期刊

BMC GENETICS
卷 15, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2156-15-39

关键词

Fatty acid; GWAS; Bos indicus; Beef; Positional candidate gene

资金

  1. EMBRAPA (Macroprograma 1)
  2. FAPESP [2011/00005-7, 2012/02383-1]
  3. CNPq

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Meat from Bos taurus and Bos indicus breeds are an important source of nutrients for humans and intramuscular fat (IMF) influences its flavor, nutritional value and impacts human health. Human consumption of fat that contains high levels of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) can reduce the concentration of undesirable cholesterol (LDL) in circulating blood. Different feeding practices and genetic variation within and between breeds influences the amount of IMF and fatty acid (FA) composition in meat. However, it is difficult and costly to determine fatty acid composition, which has precluded beef cattle breeding programs from selecting for a healthier fatty acid profile. In this study, we employed a high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chip to genotype 386 Nellore steers, a Bos indicus breed and, a Bayesian approach to identify genomic regions and putative candidate genes that could be involved with deposition and composition of IMF. Results: Twenty-three genomic regions (1-Mb SNP windows) associated with IMF deposition and FA composition that each explain >= 1% of the genetic variance were identified on chromosomes 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 26 and 27. Many of these regions were not previously detected in other breeds. The genes present in these regions were identified and some can help explain the genetic basis of deposition and composition of fat in cattle. Conclusions: The genomic regions and genes identified contribute to a better understanding of the genetic control of fatty acid deposition and can lead to DNA-based selection strategies to improve meat quality for human consumption.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据