Search

Chantier qualité GA Liste des auteurs de l'European Cattle Genetic Consortium, classés par pays : Austria: R. Baumung, S. Manatrinon, BOKU University, Vienna; Belgium: G. Mommens, University of Ghent, Merelbeke; Denmark: L.-E. Holm, Aarhus University, Tjele; K.B. Withen, B.V. Pedersen, P. Gravlund, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen; Estonia: H. Viinalass, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Tartu; Finland: J. Kantanen, I. Tapio, M.H. Li, MTT, Jokioinen; France: K. Moazami-Goudarzi, M. Gautier, Denis Laloë, INRA, Jouy-en-Josas; A. Oulmouden, H. Levéziel, INRA, Limoges; P. Taberlet, Université Joseph Fourier et CNRS, Grenoble; Germany: B. Harlizius, School of Veterinary Medicine, Hannover; H. Simianer, H. Täubert, Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen; G. Erhardt, O. Jann, C. Weimann, E.-M. Prinzenberg, Justus-Liebig Universität, Giessen; I. Medugorac, A. Medugorac, M. Förster, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität, Munich; H.M. Mix, Naturschutz International, Grünheide; C. Looft, E. Kalm, Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel; Ireland: D.G. Bradley, C.J. Edwards, D.E. MacHugh, A.R. Freeman, Trinity College, Dublin; Italy: P. Ajmone Marsan, R. Negrini, Università Cattolica del S. Cuore, Piacenza; M. Longeri, G. Ceriotti, M. Zanotti, Università degli Studi di Milano; D. Marletta, A. Criscione, Universita degli Studi di Catania, Catania; A. Valentini, C. Marchitelli, L. Pariset, M.C. Savarese, Università della Tuscia, Viterbo; F. Pilla, Università del Molise, Campobasso; Latvia: Z. Grislis, Latvia University of Agriculture, Jelgava; Lithuania: I. Miceikienė, Lithuanian Veterinary Academy, Kaunas; Netherlands: I.J. Nijman, Utrecht University; W. van Haeringen, L. van de Goor, Van Haeringen Laboratory, Wageningen; Norway: I. Olsaker, Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo; Portugal: C. Ginja, L.T.Gama, Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos—INIA, Lisbon University, Lisboa; L.T. Gama, Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos-INIA, I.P., Vale de Santarem; J.C. Mateus, Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real; A. Beja-Pereira, N. Ferrand, Oporto University; Russia: Z. Ivanova, R. Popov, I. Ammosov, Yakutian Research Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Yakutsk, Sakha; T. Kiselyova, All-Russian Research Institute for Farm Animals and Breeding, St. Petersburgh-Pushkin; N. Marzanov, All-Russian Research Institute of Animal Husbandry, Dubrovitsy; Serbia: S. Stojanovic, Ministry of Agriculture and Water Management, Belgrade; Slovenia: M. Simčič, P. Dovč, D.Kompan, University of Ljubljana, Domzale; Spain: S. Dunner, Universidad Complutense de Madrid; C. Rodellar, I. Martín-Burriel, Veterinary Faculty, Zaragoza; A. Sánchez, J. Piedrafita, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; P.J. Azor, J.V. Delgado, A. Martínez-Martínez, A. Molina, E. Rodero, University of Córdoba; Switzerland: G. Dolf, University of Berne; UK: J.L. Williams, P. Wiener, Roslin Institute; M.W. Bruford, T.C. Bray, Cardiff University, Cardiff; L. Alderson, Countrywide Livestock Ltd, Shrewsbury; USA: M.C.T. Penedo. University of California, Davis, CA; International audience; Classification of cattle breeds contributes to our understanding of the history of cattle and is essential for an effective conservation of genetic diversity. Here we review the various classifications over the last two centuries and compare the most recent classifications with genetic data. The classifications devised during the 19th to the late 20th century were in line with the Linnaean taxonomy and emphasized cranial or horn morphology. Subsequent classifications were based on coat color, geographic origin or molecular markers. Several theories were developed that linked breed characteristics either to a supposed ancestral aurochs subspecies or to a presumed ethnic origin. Most of the older classifications have now been discarded, but have introduced several Latin terms that are still in use. The most consistent classification was proposed in 1995 by Felius and emphasizes the geographic origin of breeds. This is largely in agreement with the breed clusters indicated by a biochemical and molecular genetic analysis, which reflect either groups of breeds with a common geographic origin or single breeds that have expanded by export and/or crossbreeding. We propose that this information is also relevant for managing the genetic diversity of cattle.

Publicado en el año 2008 en: Revista ITEA, 104 (2), 295-302. http://www.aida-itea.org/index.php/revista/contenidos?idArt=87&lang=esp Webs desde donde descargar las ponencias: http://acteon.webs.upv.es/ Web del congreso: http://www.uco.es/genetica/MERAGEM/xivreunion.htm La raza Merina ha tenido a lo largo de la historia un importante papel desde el punto de vista político, biológico, económico y ganadero, siendo hoy día la raza de aptitud cárnica de mayor censo de nuestro país. El objetivo de este trabajo ha sido conocer la situación de las estirpes tradicionales más importantes de la raza Merina en España (“Serena”, “Hidalgo”, “Granda” y “López-Montenegro”) mediante el uso de herramientas genealógicas y moleculares. Según nuestros resultados las estirpes que más influencia mantienen actualmente son la “Serena” y la “Hidalgo” con un 27% y un 15% respectivamente mientras que “López-Montenegro” y “Granda” cuentan con sólo un 0,3%. Se ha puesto de manifiesto la predilección de los criadores por determinados tipos de merino lo que podría poner en peligro la variabilidad genética intrarracial del Merino haciendo desaparecer alguna de las estirpes tradicionales, que por sus características morfológicas y productivas son menos rentables económicamente. Las dos estirpes con más influencia en la población son las que han presentado unos valores de variabilidad genética, estimada a partir de marcadores moleculares, mas reducida. Sin embargo las estirpes “Granda” y “López-Montenego” han presentado los valores mayores de heterocigosidad observada (Ho) (0,67 y 0,70), esperada (He) (0,68, 0,72) y número medio de alelos por locus (Nma) (7,45 y 7,97) respectivamente. La comparación entre ambas metodologías determinó que el coeficiente de diferenciación genética (FST) para los animales de las cuatro líneas identificadas, fue un 30% más elevado mediante genealogías que mediante información molecular. Preliminary assessment of population structure of Spanish Merino Breed: traditional strains situation using genealogical and molecular analysis Merino sheep breed is the most important breed in Spain according to their census. It is the most censed meat production sheep breed in Spain. It has played an important role in the politic, biologic, economical and livestock aspects. The aim of this study is assess the situation of the most important traditional strains in Spain of Merino breed (“Serena”, “Higalgo”, “Granda” y “López-Montenegro”) using genealogical and molecular information. The most influential strains in the present Merino population are “Serena” and “Hidalgo” (27% and 15% respectively). “Lopez-Montenegro” and “Granda” strains have only 0.3% of influence. The breeder’s preferences in raise some strains have been evidenced. This task could endanger the intra population genetic variability of the Merino breed and some traditional strains could disappear because of their economical worse morphological and productive trait. The two more influential strains (“Serena” and “Hidalgo”) have shown the lowest value of the molecular variability parameters. However the highest values have been shown by “Granda” and “López-Montenego” strains (observed heterozygosis (Ho) = 0.67 and 0.70; expected heterozygosis (He) = 0,68 and 0,72; and average number of alleles per locus was 7,45 and 7,97 respectively). We found that the coefficient of genetic differentiation value (FST) using genealogical information, for the four strains analyzed, was 30% higher than using molecular information.