Skip to main content

Parentage Determination in Three Breeds of Indian Goat Using Heterologous Microsatellite Markers

  • Conference paper
  • 1331 Accesses

Abstract

Parentage verification in Indian goat breeds addresses dubious parentage of three types: 1, exclusion of a putative parent when the genotype of one parent and offspring are known; 2, exclusion of a putative parent when the genotype of the other parent is not available; and 3, exclusion of both the parents of an offspring if falsely recorded. The investigation used 116 unrelated goats and six pedigreed families of three breeds of goat (Jamnapari, Barbari and Sirohi). A set of 12 bovine microsatellite markers was analysed for parentage determination in goats for different types of misidentifications. For Type 1 dubious parentage, the exclusion probability for each marker varied widely, from as low as 13.4% (locus BM-5004 in Jamnapari) to as high as 67% (locus BMS-1237 in Sirohi). For type 2, the values of probability of exclusion ranged from 5% (locus BMS-1237 in Barbari) to 50.1% (locus BMS-1237 in Sirohi). For Type 3, exclusion values ranged from 21.6% to 84%. The exclusion probabilities of falsely recorded parents were estimated for different combinations of 5 markers sets with 12, 8, 6, 5 and 4 markers, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ali, S., Muller, C.R. & Epplen, J.T. 1986. DNA fingerprinting by oligonucleotide probes specific for simple repeats. Human Genetics, 74: 239–243.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  • Botstein, D., White, R.L., Skolnick, M. & Davis, R.W. 1980. Construction of genetic linkage maps in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. American Journal of Human Genetics, 32: 314–331.

    PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  • Caetano-Anolles, G. 1998. DNA Markers: Protocols, Applications and Overviews. New York NY: Wiley-VCH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganai, N.A. & Yadav, B.R. 2001. Genetic variation within and among three breeds of goats using heterologous microsatellite markers. Animal Biotechnology, 12: 121–136.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  • Geldermann, H., Pieper, U. & Weber, W.E. 1986. Effect of misidentification on the estimation of breeding value and heritability in cattle. Journal of Animal Science, 63: 1759–1768.

    PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, R.A. & Morris, J.W. 1983. General equation for the average power of exclusion for genetic systems of n codominant alleles in one parent and in no-parent cases of disputed parentage. pp. 277–280, in: Inclusion of Probabilities in Parentage Testing. Virginia, USA: American Association of Blood Banks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundel, H. & Reetz, I. 1981. Exclusion probabilities obtained by biochemical polymorphisms in dogs. Animal Blood Groups & Biochemical Genetics, 12: 123–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, A. 1994. The effectiveness of using co-dominant polymorphic allelic series for (1) Checking pedigrees and (2) Distinguishing full-sib pair members. Animal Genetics, 25(Suppl.1): 37–44.

    PubMed  ISI  Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, A. & Taylor, S.C.S. 1997. Comparisons of three probability formulae for parentage exclusion. Animal Genetics, 28: 397–400.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffreys, A.J., Brookfield, J.F.Y. & Semeonoff, R. 1985. Positive identification of an immigration test-case using human DNA fingerprints. Nature, 317: 818–819.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  • Jeffreys, A.J., MacLeod, A., Tamaki, K., Neil, D.L. & Monckton, D.C. 1991. Minisatellite repeat coding as a digital approach to DNA typing. Nature (London), 354: 204–209.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  • Litt, M. & Luty, J.A. 1989. A hypervariable microsatellite revealed by in vitro amplification of a dinucleotide repeat within the cardiac muscle actin gene. American Journal of Human Genetics, 44: 397–401.

    PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  • Vaiman, D., Schibler, L., Bourgeris, F., Oustry, A., Amigues, Y. & Cribiu, E.P. 1996. A genetic linkage map of the male goat genome. Genetics, 144: 279–305.

    PubMed  CAS  ISI  Google Scholar 

  • Weir, B.S. 1996. Genetic data analysis II. Sunderland MA: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2005 IAEA

About this paper

Cite this paper

Ganai, N., Yadav, B. (2005). Parentage Determination in Three Breeds of Indian Goat Using Heterologous Microsatellite Markers. In: Makkar, H.P., Viljoen, G.J. (eds) Applications of Gene-Based Technologies for Improving Animal Production and Health in Developing Countries. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3312-5_45

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics