Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T09:11:24.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic variability of dromedary camel populations based on microsatellite markers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2020

M. Piro ,
F. E. Mabsoute ,
N. El Khattaby ,
H. Laghouaouta  and
I. Boujenane Open the ORCID record for I. Boujenane [Opens in a new window]
M. Piro
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Surgery and Reproduction, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco
F. E. Mabsoute
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production and Biotechnology, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco
N. El Khattaby
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production and Biotechnology, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco
H. Laghouaouta
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production and Biotechnology, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco
I. Boujenane*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Production and Biotechnology, Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II, Rabat, Morocco
*
†E-mail: ismail.boujenane@gmail.com
Get access

Abstract

Understanding existing levels of genetic variability of camel populations is capital for conservation activities. This study aims to provide information on the genetic diversity of four dromedary populations, including Guerzni, Harcha, Khouari and Marmouri. Blood samples from 227 individuals belonging to the aforementioned populations were obtained and genotyped by 16 microsatellite markers. A total of 215 alleles were observed, with the mean number of alleles per locus being 13.4 ± 6.26. All loci were polymorphic in the studied populations. The average expected heterozygosity varied from a maximum of 0.748 ± 0.122 in Guerzni population to a minimum of 0.702 ± 0.128 in Harcha population; Guerzni population showed the highest value of observed heterozygosity (0.699 ± 0.088), whereas Harcha population the lowest (0.646 ± 0.130). Mean estimates of F-statistics obtained over loci were FIS = 0.0726, FIT = 0.0876 and FST = 0.0162. The lowest genetic distance was obtained between Guerzni and Khouari (0.023), and the highest genetic distance between Harcha and Marmouri (0.251). The neighbour-joining phylogenetic tree showed two groups of populations indicating a cluster of Guerzni, Khouari and Marmouri, and a clear isolation of Harcha. The genetic distances, the factorial correspondence analysis, the analysis of genetic structure and the phylogenetic tree between populations revealed significant differences between Harcha and other populations, and a high similarity between Guerzni, Khouari and Marmouri. It is concluded from this study that the camel genetic resources studied are well diversified. However, the herd management, especially the random selection of breeding animals, can increase the level of genetic mixing between different populations, mainly among Guerzni, Khouari and Marmouri, that live in the same habitat and grazing area.

Keywords

genetic diversityheterozygositygenetic differentiationpopulation structureMorocco
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 14 , Issue 12 , December 2020 , pp. 2452 - 2462
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Animal Consortium

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achaaban, MR, Ouragh, L and Ouassat, M 1997. Characterization of Moroccan camel’s population. Final report of Camel Applied Research and Development Network (CARDN) Project: Study and practical research in the field of camel livestock. Hassan II Institute of Agronomy and Veterinary Medicine, Rabat, Morocco.Google Scholar
Almathen, F, Charruau, P, Mohandesan, E, Mwacharo, JM, Orozco-Terwengel, P, Pitt, D, Abdussamad, AM, Uerpmann, M, Uerpmann, HP, De Cupere, B, Magee, P, Alnaqeeb, MA, Salim, B, Raziq, A, Dessie, T, Abdelhadi, OM, Banabazi, MH, Al-Eknah, M, Walzer, C, Faye, B, Hofreiter, M, Peters, J, Hanotte, O and Burger, PA 2016. Ancient and modern DNA reveal dynamics of domestication and cross-continental dispersal of the dromedary. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 113, 6707–6712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Al-Soudy, A 2018. Assessment of the genetic diversity, breeds structure and genetic relationships in four Egyptian camel breeds using microsatellite and Start Codon Targeted (SCoT) markers. Journal of Biodiversity & Endangered Species 6, 001.Google Scholar
Bahbahani, H, Musa, HH, Wragg, D, Shuiep, ES, Almathen, F and Hanotte, O 2019. Genome diversity and signatures of selection for production and performance traits in dromedary camels. Frontiers in Genetics 10, Article 893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belkhir, K, Borsa, P, Chikhi, L, Raufaste, N and Bonhomme, F 2004. GENETIX 4.05.2, Logiciel sous Windows TM pour la génétique des populations. Laboratoire Génome, Populations, Interactions, CNRS UMR 5000, Université de Montpellier II, Montpellier, France. Retrieved from http://www.univmontp2.fr/~genetix/genetix/constr.htm#downloadGoogle Scholar
Boujenane, I, El Khattaby, N, Laghouaouta, H, Badaoui, B and Piro, M 2019. Morphological diversity of female camel (Camelus dromedarius) populations in Morocco. Tropical Animal Health and Production 51, 1367–1373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapuis, MP and Estoup, A 2007. Microsatellite null alleles and estimation of population differentiation. Molecular Biology and Evolution 24, 621–631.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheng, HH, Levin, I, Vallejo, RL, Khatib, H, Dodgson, JB, Crittenden, LB and Hillel, J 1995. Development of a genetic map of the chicken with markers of high utility. Poultry Science 74, 1855–1874.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cherifi, YA, Gaouar, SBS, Guastamacchia, R, El-Bahrawy, KA, Abushady, AMA, Sharaf, AA, Harek, D, Lacalandra, GM, Saïdi-Mehtar, N and Ciani, E 2017. Weak genetic structure in Northern African dromedary camels reflects their unique evolutionary history. PLoS ONE 12, e0168672.Google ScholarPubMed
Eltanany, M, Elfaroug Sidahmed, O and Distl, O 2015. Assessment of genetic diversity and differentiation of two major camel ecotypes (Camelus dromedarius) in Sudan using microsatellite markers. Archives Animal Breeding 58, 269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earl, DA and vonHoldt, BM 2012. STRUCTURE HARVESTER: a website and program for visualizing STRUCTURE output and implementing the Evanno method. Conservation Genetics Resources 4, 359–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezzahiri, A 1988. Les races de dromadaires élevées dans la zone d’Ouarzazate. Report of Ouarzazate’s ORMVA, Ouarzazate, Morocco.Google Scholar
Felsentein, J 2013. Phylogeny Inference Package PHYLIP. Version 3.695. Department of Genome Sciences and Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 1998. Secondary Guidelines for Development of National Farm Animal Genetic Resources Management Plans. Measurement of Domestic Animal Diversity (MoDAD): Recommended Microsatellite Markers. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-aq569e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hashim, WM, Ahmed, SES, Makkaw, AA, Yousif, GM and Mehta, SC 2014. Twenty-five polymorphic microsatellite loci used to genotype some camel types & subtypes from Sudan, Qatar, Chad and Somalia. Journal of Camel Practice and Research 21, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedayat-Evrigh, N, Miraei-Ashtiani, SR, Moradi Shahrebabak, M, Khalkhali Evrigh, R and Pourasad, K 2018. Molecular assessment of genetic diversity in dromedaries and Bactrian camel using microsatellite markers. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 20, 1137–1148.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, I, Marsan, PA, Barker, JSF, Cothran, EG, Hanotte, O, Lenstra, JA, Milan, D, Weigend, S, and Simianer, H 2004. New MoDAD marker sets to be used in diversity studies for the major farm animal species: recommendations of a joint ISAG/FAO working group. Proceedings of the 29th International Conference of Animal Genetics, 11–16 September 2004, Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Mahmoud, AH, Abu-Tarbush, FM, Alshaik, M, Aljumaah, R and Saleh, A 2019. Genetic diversity and population genetic structure of six dromedary camel (Camelus dromedarius) populations in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. Retrieved on 14 December 2019.Google Scholar
Mahmoud, AH, Alshaikh, MA, Aljumaah, RS and Mohammed, OB 2012. Genetic variability of camel (Camelus dromedarius) populations in Saudi Arabia based on microsatellites analysis. African Journal of Biotechnology 11, 11173–11180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mburu, DN, Ochieng, JW, Kuria, SG, Jianlin, H, Kaufmann, B, Rege, JEO and Hanotte, O 2003. Genetic diversity and relationships of indigenous Kenyan camel (Camelus dromedarius) populations: implications for their classification. Animal Genetics 34, 26–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, SA, Dykes, DO and Poleskcy, HT 1988. A simple salting out procedure for extracting DNA from human nucleated cells. Nucleic Acids Research 16, 1215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ministry of Agriculture 2018. The camel sector as part of the Moroccan green plan. In Proceedings of the 5th ISOCARD Meeting, 12–15 November 2018, Laâyoune, Morocco.Google Scholar
Nei, M 1972. Genetic distance between populations. American Naturalist 106, 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolte, M, Kotzé, A, van der Bank, FH and Grobler, JP 2005. Microsatellite markers reveal low genetic differentiation among southern African Camelus dromedarius populations. South African Journal of Animal Science 35, 152–161.Google Scholar
Nouairia, G, Kdidi, S, Ben Salah, R, Hammadi, M, Khorchani, T and Yahyaoui, MH 2015. Assessing genetic diversity of three Tunisian dromedary camel (Camelus dromedarius) sub populations using microsatellite markers. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 27, 362–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ould Ahmed, M, Ben Salem, F, Bedhiaf, S, Rekik, B and Djemali, M 2010. Genetic diversity in Tunisian dromedary (Camelus dromedarius) populations using microsatellite markers. Livestock Science 132, 182–185.Google Scholar
Piro, M, Bouazzati, O, Bengoumi, M, El Allali, K, Achaaban, MR, Benjouad, A, Nabich, A and Ouragh, L 2011. Genetic characterisation of Moroccan camel populations using microsatellites markers. Journal of Camel Practice and Research 18, 167–172.Google Scholar
Piry, S, Alapetite, A, Cornuet, JM, Paetkau, D, Baudouin, L and Estoup, A 2004. GeneClass2: a software for genetic assignment and first generation migrant detection. Journal of Heredity 95, 536–539.Google ScholarPubMed
Pritchard, JK, Stephens, M and Donnelly, P 2000. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959.Google ScholarPubMed
Rannala, B and Mountain, JL 1997. Detecting immigration by using multilocus genotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 94, 9197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raymond, M and Rousset, F 1995. Genepop (version 1.2), population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. Journal of Heredity 86, 248–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takezaki, N and Nei, M 1996. Genetic distances and reconstruction of phylogenetic trees from microsatellite DNA. Genetics 144, 389–399.Google ScholarPubMed
Weir, BS and Cockerman, CC 1984. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38, 1358–1370.Google ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Piro et al. supplementary material

Piro et al. supplementary material

Download Piro et al. supplementary material(File)
File 39.5 KB