Microsatellite marker’s polymorphism
The observed number of alleles ranged from 4.73 (ILSTS005) to 15.0 (OarFCB304) whereas expected number varied from 2.13 (LST008) to 7.71 (OarFCB304) with mean value of 3.85± 0.07(Table 1). The mean number of observed alleles per locus was found to be higher than expected which indicated immigration of alleles in these goats. The overall allelic diversity is considered to be a reasonable indicator of genetic variation. A microsatellite preferably should have at least 4 alleles to be useful for the evaluation of genetic diversity as per the standard selection of microsatellites loci (Barker, 1994).
The polymorphic information content (PIC) of a marker reveals its usefulness in diversity analysis of a breed. Following the criteria of
Botstein et al., (1980), 84% of the investigated markers were observed to be highly informative (PIC > 0.5), 12% as reasonably informative (0.25 < PIC < 0.5) and only 4% were slightly informative (PIC < 0.25). PIC value ranged from 0.607 (ILSTS022) to 0.933 (OarFCB304) with an average value of 0.794 (Table 1), which again indicated abundant genetic diversity in the population. The higher PIC further indicated the utility of these markers for population assignment
(Mac-Hugh et al., 1997) as well as genome mapping
(Kayang et al., 2002) studies in addition to genetic diversity analysis.
Genetic variability is also measured as the amount of actual or potential heterozygosity, as presented in Table 1. Expected heterozygosity was found to be higher than the observed heterozygosity at all the loci. The mean observed and expected heterozygosities were 0.55± 0.01 and 0.67± 0.01, respectively. Most of the loci showed relatively higher expected heterozygosity values that might be due to low selection pressure, large population size and immigration of new genetic material. Thus, there was a considerable genetic polymorphism within and between populations on the basis of their allele number per locus (
NA) and their genetic heterozygosity (
HE). The usefulness of these markers in diversity analysis was also indicated in the earlier study of
Dixit et al., (2009).
Overall means of F
IT, F
ST and F
IS obtained from Jackknifing over loci were significantly different from zero. The F
ST value ranged from 0.084 (OarFCB304) to 0.382 (ETH225) with an overall genetic differentiation of 18.3% among breeds which indicating that there is genetic differentiation among the studied population and remaining 81.8% corresponding to differences among individuals within population. The F
IS value ranged from -0.010 (ILSTS059) to 0.641 (OarJMP29). An overall significant heterozygote deficit (F
IS) of 18 % was observed over all loci within samples. The positive F
IS was resulted from genetic subdivision, non- random mating. The heterozygote deficit and moderate genetic differentiation among 22 goat populations of India were also reported by Dixit
et a., (2009). Moreover, F
IS is used to show degree of inbreeding and endangerment potentiality and considered an important tool to judge the conservation priority
(Simon et al., 1993). Accordingly, when F
IS< 0.05 then breed is considered as not endangered, 0.05 to 0.15 is potentially endangered, 0.15 to 0.25 is minimally endangered, 0.25 to 0.40 is endangered and > 0.40 is considered as critically endangered.
Molecular genetics diversity of population
The population genetic diversity and genetic distance of 27 goat populations over 25 STR markers are presented in Table 2. The mean number of alleles across the loci was higher than 8 in more than half of the populations. The mean number of alleles ranged from 5.640±0.661 (Osmanabadi) to 9.360±0.519 (KanniAdu) followed by 8.920±0.700 in Narayanpatna. A high MNA indicated the presence of great genetic variation which may be due to cross breeding or admixture. While the low value as in case of Osmanabadi and Malkangiri indicated low variation due to genetic isolation, historical population bottleneckor founder effect.
Rout et al., (2008) also estimated mean number of alleles in the range of 8.1 (Barbari) to 9.7 (Jakhrana) in Indian goats.
An appropriate measure of genetic variation was gene diversity (average expected heterozygisity). Among the breeds, the expected heterozygosity was found to be higher than observed heterozygosity. The average value of observed heterozygosity was 0.549±0.010 with a range of 0.421±0.057 in Osmanabadi to 0.643±0.053 in Mehsana whereas the average value of expected heterozygosity was 0.669±0.007 with a range of 0.566±0.048 in Osmanabadi to 0.731±0.021 in KanniAdu. The similar values of gene diversity were also reported in literature
(Rout et al., 2008; Dixit et al., 2009 and
Serrano et al., 2009
/>
The F
IS value ranged from 0.046 (Malkangiri) to 0.335 (Jharkhand Black) which indicated that Jharkhand Black had more deviation from Hardy–Weinberg Equilibrium. F
IS value of non-descript goat populations were on lower side of average F
IS value (0.192) of all the populations. This reflected random mating in these populations. The moderate value of F
IS indicated some of the loci in the breeds were homozygous presumably resulting from mating between relatives and consequent genetic drift which also reflect degree of endanger. Same level of inbreeding was also reported in different goat population
(Dixit et al., 2009 and
Vahidi et al., 2014).
The pair-wise Nei’s genetic distance (D
A) and F
ST statistic values among 27 Indian goat populations are presented in Table 3. The low genetic distance was indicative of closeness and vice-versa. The high Nei genetic distance (>0.5) was observed among most of the Indian registered goat breeds except few. Highest (1.00) genetic distances were observed between non-descript studied new population and many of registered breeds like Black Bengal, Ganjam, Gohilwadi, Jharkhand Black, Attapaddy, Changthangi, Kutchi, Mehsana, Sirohi and Malabari while in some cases, it was low. Though, among non-descript populations, there was low genetic distance (< 0.24) but Narayanpatna was more distantly placed with rest of the non-descript populations, followed by Raighar which is almost same as represented by average co-ancestry (Table 6). The lowest pair-wise Nei’s genetic distance was between Jamunapari and Marwari followed by Raighar and Rohilkhandi (0.09) and highest genetic distance (1.00) was also observed between some of breeds.
Rout et al., (2008) estimated lowest genetic distance between Marwari and Sirohi as 0.135 and highest (0.246) between Pashmina and Black Bengal. The estimates of
Mohmoudi et al., (2011) ranged from 0.273 to 0.745 among Iranian goat populations. The lower estimates of
FST value in range of 0.03 to 0.08 was found among Black Bengal, Ganjam, Gohilwadi, Jharkhand Black, Attapady, Jakrana, Surti, Gaddi, Marwari, Barbari, Beetal and KanniAdu while the highest
FST value was estimated between non- descript studied population and Black Bengal, Ganjam, Gohilwadi, Jharkhand Black, Attapady, Changthangi, Kutchi, Mehsana, Sirohi and Malabari. The
FST value among new populations was in the range of 0.02 to 0.05. Thus, the study revealed
FST value among new populations and high Nei’s genetic distance of new goat populations with other studied goat breeds. Hence, new populations were not significantly different from each other but with rest of breeds.
The analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) within and between populations is presented in Table 4. The AMOVA revealed that percentage of variation among population was 28.18 and within populations were 71.82.
Rout et al., (2008) estimated variance among Indian goats as 6.59% which was lower than present findings probably due to fewer numbers of breeds considered. Zaman and Chandra Shekhar (2015) studied the genetic diversity and population structure of four goat populations of Northeast India including West Bengal and showed 21% of the total variation was due to differences between genetic groups.
Population structure
The structure and clustering software have ability of inferring the correct number of subpopulation and assigning individuals appropriately even when genetic differentiation among groups is low (0.02 to 0.05)
(Latch et al., 2006). In present study, 1237 individuals from 27 populations sub-clustered by STRUCTURE are presented in Fig 1 and most of the populations reached their own distinct cluster containing only a single population. The results derived from use of this programme provide a strong support of new population cluster subdivision. This subdivision seems to be reasonable since few farmers in studied areas exchange goats and therefore these population show more genetic homozygosity. Ganjam, Gohilwadiand Malabari fall in one group; Jamunapari, Jakhrana, Marwai, Barbari and Beetal in 2
nd group; Sangamneri, Changthangi and Osmanabadi in separate group and rest of the breed fall under their own group. Among non-descript studied new populations, Narayanpatna and Raighar clustering in one group while Kalahandi, Rohilkhandi and Malkangiri in another cluster. A different approach is that individuals belonging to different clusters could be used in planned mating to maintain a good level of genetic variability and rusticity (stress-resistance) and avoid excessive inbreeding
(Guastella et al., 2010).
Phylogenetic analysis
Takezaki and Nei, (1996) have demonstrated that D
A (distance) and D
C (diversity) are the most efficient means of obtaining a correct topology on the basis of microsatellite analysis when within population variation is high and distance between each pair of population are used to build a tree. The phylogenetic tree analysis is presented in Fig 2. which revealed that the smallest distance is between Jamunapari and Marwari followed by Kalahandi and Rohilkhandi while largest distances are between B.Bengal with Jamunapari, Marwari, Barbari; Ganjam withJamunapari, Marwari; Gohilwari with Jamunapari, Marwari, Jakhrana, Barbari Zalawadi; Jh. Black with Jamunapari, Marwari, Barbari and New populations with B. Black, Ganjam, Gohilwari, Jh.Black, Attapady, Changthangi, Kutchi, Mehsana, Sirohi and Malabari. The smallest distance is seen among new goat populations compared with other goat breeds which are clearly visible with considerable reliability in phylogenetic tree. The phylogenetic study revealed that Rohilkhandi populations are separated from Malkangiri, Raighar and Kalahandi with 70% reliability and again Narayanpatna population from rest of the new population with 95% reliability. These new population are meat type. Except few, almost all known Indian milk breed clustering in one cluster and separated with new population with 57.5% reliability. Again milk and meat breed/populations are separated with rest of the breeds with 94.6% reliability. The present studied breed/population also shows that almost all breeds/ populations are clustered according to their genetic distances but not all; some are according to geographical distance which indicates limited exchange of animals may be due to socio-cultural constraints.
Serrano et al., (2009) study the genetic structure using Bayesian clustering of 22 Guadarrama goats and found that there is no correlation between geographical distances and genetic distances regarding distribution of breeds. In greek sheep,
Ligda et al., (2009) shown that the phylogenetic relationships are in accordance with the geographical location of the breeds, the history of the origin of the breeds and the breeding practices.
Mahmoudi et al., (2010) analyzed genetic distance using an unweighted pair group method with arithmetic means (UPGMA) diagram based on Nei’s standard genetic distances, yielded relationships between populations was agreed with their origin, history and geographical distribution.
Hassen et al., (2012) grouped the six goat populations with Neighbor-joining using UPGMA methods with bootstrap value of 1,000 into two major groups
viz. Agew, Gumuz, Bati, Begia-Medir as first group and Central Abergelle goats as the second group. They obtained higher total variation within the goat populations (95%) confirms a close relatedness of the studied goat ecotypes, which might have happened due to existence of uncontrolled breeding resulting from movement of animals through various market routes and agricultural extension systems.
Principal component analysis
The principal component analysis is presented in Fig 3. which clearly revealed three clusters of the breeds. The first cluster consisted of new populations and Zalawadi belonging to nearby coastal area, second cluster consisted of breeds of western costal region of north-western region, southern-peninsular India and those of eastern region; and third cluster consisted of breeds of northern (gangetic plain) and western plains of north-west region including lower Himalayan region, However, Attappady and Kanniadu of Peninsular India also joins the third cluster. Malabari and Zalawadi were distinct from other breeds. Thus, PCA analyses clearly separated the breeds of Himalayan regions from rest of the breeds. Thus, there seems to be three major point of evolution of Indian goat breeds based on microsatellite markers. On the other hand, if we see on their functionality; they are clearly separated in three clusters except few exceptions. New population along with Zalawadi is grouping in one group as they are sharing coastal area. Most of the milk breeds
viz- Jamunapari, Barbari, Beetal Marwari, Surti, Jakhrana belonging to plain area are grouping in one group while the rest of the breeds are in another group. In general, milch and dual purpose goats are clustering in one cluster while meat purpose breeds in another cluster.
Thus, investigation of the phylogeny and the plot for PCA indicated that Indian goat breeds were grouped according to their physio-geographic location.
Rout et al., (2008) reported that both phylogenetic tree and PCA showed the distribution of Indian goat breed basically in two major clusters with respect to geographical distribution
It also seems that there is a clear association between particular goat type and their sub-region. Within sub-region, populations could be grouped according to phenotypic characteristics except few.
Average co-ancestry among subpopulations
The molecular co-ancestry information is a useful tool to study the genetic relationship between the breeds. Both average kinship distance (D
k) and average molecular co-ancestry coefficient (f
ij) account for the allele frequencies in the founder population whereas Nei’s genetic distance and Reynold’s genetic distance characterize the short term evolution of the population
(Alvarez et al., 2005). The molecular co-ancestry based parameters may be used with classical genetic parameters to obtain the information on population dynamics in livestock as suggested by
Alvarez et al., (2005). In present study, the average co-ancestry among subpopulation i and j,
i.e f
ij average kinship distance and Nei’s minimum genetic distance were estimated using allelic frequency over 25 microsatellite loci between 27 studied goat breeds/populations and are presented in Table 5 and Table 6. The average co-ancestry within population ranged from 0.167 (Zalawadi) to 0.409 (Osmanabadi) but most of the populations (19) had average co-ancestry >0.300 which indicated a strong co-ancestry within individuals of a population. But between populations, it was low in most cases. The average kinship distance within breeds was around 0.4 while between breeds, it ranged from 0.418 (Black Bengal and Malabari) to 0.642 (Jharkhand black and Marwari). The new populations under study showed >0.5 kinship distance with rest of breeds except Osmanabadi and Zalawadi (≤ 0.4). The Nei’s minimum distance, value was very lower than kinship distance but the trend was almost same except few cases.
Traore et al., (2009) also computed molecular co-ancestry value between goat breeds which ranged from 0.418 to 0.450. The new goat populations had very low average co-ancestry relationship with Black Bengal, Ganjam, Gohilwadi, Jharkhand Black, Attapady, Changthangi, Kutchi, Mehsana, Sirohi and Malabari, which was in agreement with high F
ST value estimated among them, but it was high with rest of the breeds.