Next Article in Journal
Evaluating Genetic Diversity and Regional Variation in Tswana Goats of Botswana
Previous Article in Journal
Chronic Pulmonary Aspergillosis: Genomic Variant Analysis and Protein Dysfunction Susceptibility in a Brazilian Cohort
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genes
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/genes16060677
genes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of Genetic Diversity and Productive Traits in Crossbreed Cattle in the Caribbean Region, Colombia

by
Andrés Rodríguez-Serrano
,
Marcos Ahumada-Velasco
* and
Jesús María Cárdenas Beltrán
Profesional de Investigación, Universidad de Cartagena, Cartagena de Indias 130001, Colombia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genes 2025, 16(6), 677; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16060677
Submission received: 15 April 2025 / Revised: 14 May 2025 / Accepted: 19 May 2025 / Published: 30 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Topic Advances in Molecular Genetics and Breeding of Cattle, Sheep, and Goats)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objectives: Evaluate the genetic diversity and productive traits of crossbred cattle in the Caribbean region of Colombia, through analyses derived from the assessment of the genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). Methods: A total of 590 individuals and 66,098 SNPs were analyzed by principal components analysis (PCA) and detection of runs of homozygosity (ROH). The population was composed of 531 heifers marked as crossbreed and a group of 59 heifers marked as purebred Gyr. Additionally, allele frequencies were calculated for commercially important traits (CSN2, CSN3, LGB, DGAT1, GH1, CAPN1_316, CAPN1_350, CAPN1_4751, CAST_282, CAST_2870, and CAST_2959). Results: Global differences in PCA were 7.35%, and principal components explained 1.94% and 5.41% of the variation. Five ROH islands were identified in crossbred animals on chromosomes 2, 5, 7, 8, and 12. The majority of observed ROH classes were shorter than 2 Mb, 54% in crossbreed cattle and 47% in Gyr cattle. Individual inbreeding was 5.2% in crossbreed and 12% in Gyr cattle. Both groups had similar allelic and genotypic frequencies for most of the evaluated commercial traits. Only a wide variation was observed in the genes related to growth hormone (GH1) and Calpastatin (CAST_2870 and CAST_22959). Crossbreed heifers had desired allele frequencies for better milk production and quality in the genes CSN2, LGB, DGAT1, and GH1, as well as in the genes CAST_2870 and CAST_2959. Conclusions: Crossbreed cattle in the Colombian Caribbean region possess high genetic diversity and desirable allele frequencies to implement breeding and intense selection programs aimed at improving production yields.

1. Introduction

In biological terms, genetic diversity reflects the degree to which organisms can adapt to changing environmental conditions [1]. In livestock, it is the extent of selection processes that a population has undergone and the capacity to implement genetic improvement programs with the aim of increasing the frequency of desirable economic traits in animals [2]. Domestication and further selection of cattle have allowed the creation of a large number of breeds through factors such as mutations, migrations, and isolation [3]. These breeds have well-defined characteristics of interest to breeders, primarily dairy or meat production [4].
Due to this selection, and other practices such as intensive selective breeding, for a limited number of traits, intensification of production systems, controlled environmental conditions, and the globalization of breeding programs using common bulls, pure breeds have increasing inbreeding levels [2]. This increase in inbreeding could reduce the effective population size and result in inbreeding depression, probably leading to a decline in the expression of economically important traits [5]. For this reason, breeding programs and selection schemes must consider strategies to maximize genetic gain with minimal impact of inbreeding levels [6].
In contrast, crossbreed cattle in Colombia, due to the production system in which they develop, which are characterized by dual-purpose systems managed by low-income livestock farmers and a lack of technification, are often raised with minimal or no breeding programs, where production level is not the primary focus. Dairy production yield and average daily gains are about 3.5 L cow−1 and 420 g day−1, respectively. These animals compose 35% of the Colombian cattle herd [7], and despite their production levels, they represent nearly 50% of the national milk supply [8] and 40.5% of the total beef production chain [9].
Crossbreed cattle in dual-purpose systems of the Caribbean region of Colombia are primarily a product of crosses between different breeds, predominantly of the Bos indicus type; however, due to the lack of animal and productive records, their genealogical information is often partial or entirely unknown. It is common to have the indiscriminate use of breeders [10] and genetic diversity, inbreeding levels, and important economic traits are either unknown or under-evaluated. Consequently, implementing effective selection programs is difficult [11].
Some producers in the region incorporate pure breeds in their herds to increase productive performance and achieve heterosis. However, given the aforementioned challenges and lack of knowledge, not all crossbreeding efforts yield the expected advantages [10]. Faced with this situation, genomic analysis using single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) could be a tool to overcome the deficient genealogical information [12] and measure genetic diversity through methodologies like the detection of runs of homozygosity (ROH), which can identify identical homozygote genomic regions by descendance across the entire autosome genome and measure the coefficient of genomic inbreeding [13]. Additionally, SNP detection allows the identification of genomic regions associated with specific phenotypical parameters known as quantitative trait loci (QTL), among which are CSN2, CSN3, GH1, and LGB for milk production, and CAPN, CSN, and CAST for meat quality [14,15]. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the genetic diversity and productive traits of crossbred cattle in the Caribbean region of Colombia, through analyses derived from the assessment of the genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), and through this analysis, test the hypothesis that the management of crossbred cattle in dual-purpose systems in the region leads to reduced genetic diversity and a lower prevalence of commercially productive traits in the genome.

2. Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in the Caribbean Region of Colombia, and hair follicle samples were collected from 590 heifers from Bolivar n = 75, Cordoba n = 506, and Sucre n = 6. Heifers were selected in order to make a descriptive and exploratory analysis of the genetic diversity and prevalence of commercially productive traits in the genome, which works as a tool for reproduction and genetic improvement programs. Heifers were selected from small-scale producers, body weights ranging between 300–350 kg and body condition scores between 5–8 (on a 1–10 scale). Sampling was conducted during the mandatory cattle vaccination campaigns organized by the Colombian government, during which each producer confined the herd on their own properties. The confinement was conducted only once and lasted no more than 20 min. Tail hair removal was performed with a quick and instantaneous upward movement, extracting at least 20 hairs with intact follicles stored in paper envelopes. Initially, the plan was to sample crossbred heifers, but the cattle population of the producers who participated in the sampling included a significant proportion of pure Gyr breed animals, which are often used as genetic improvement material. For this reason, it was decided to differentiate the two groups—crossbred and pure Gyr—to conduct the analyses.
DNA extraction was performed using the Termofisher, MagMAX™ CORE Nucleic Acid Purification kit, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA. Genotyping and commercially important genes identifications were performed using the Termofisher’s software, Axiom™ V. 4.0, Bovine Genotyping 100 K. Data was pruned by quality control using software PLINK 1.9 [16] with a call rate (number of markers successfully identified) ≥ 95%, minor allele frequency (MAF) < 0.05, Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium > 0.000001, and missing genotype < 10%. After quality control, 66,098 SNPs were preserved, and no heifers were removed. The population was composed of 531 heifers marked as crossbreed and a group of 59 heifers marked as pure breed Gyr.

2.1. Genomic Analysis

A principal component analysis (PCA) was performed, using the genetic distances between individuals, calculated with the command “--distance-matrix” from PLINK 1.9 software. Additionally, to measure the inbreeding coefficient, a runs of homozygosity analysis (FROH) was performed using the RSdtudio V.4.4.1 package “DetectRuns” [17] with the “SlidingRuns” method, using the following parameters: (a) Window size 50 SNP; (b) minimum ROH length 1000 bps; (c) Maximum gap per ROH 106; and (d) Minimum SNP 20. The FROH was estimated following the method described by [18].
F R O H L R O H L A U T
where LROH is the total length of all ROH detected in the individual’s autosomes, and LAUT is the entire length of the autosomal genome. Additionally, the population was categorized into five length classes (1–2 Mb, 2–4 Mb, 4–8 Mb, 8–16 Mb, and >16 Mb) to analyze the FROH distribution. The percentage of SNPs existing within a ROH was calculated, and potential hotspots or ROH in the genome were identified when the percentage exceeded a 50% threshold [19]. SNPs found within a ROH were explored for annotated genes on the Bos taurus assembly ASR-UCD1.2 in the genomic data viewer available at https://www.ensembl.org/Bos_taurus/Info/Index, accessed on 15 February 2025.

2.2. Commercially Important Traits

Genotypic frequencies for commercially important traits (CSN2, CSN3, LGB, DGAT1, GH1, CAPN1_316, CAPN1_350, CAPN1_4751, CAST_282, CAST_2870, and CAST_2959) were calculated using the Hard–Weinberg equation (p2 + 2pq + q2), where p2 is the frequency of the dominant homozygous dominant genotype, 2pq is the frequency of the heterozygous genotype, and q2 is the frequency of the homozygous recessive genotype. Allele frequencies were calculated from genotypic frequencies, and the proportion of individuals that have important genes for milk and beef production was established.

3. Results

According to the PCA, the two evaluated groups (Crossbreed and Gyr cattle) exhibit molecular differences. However, they are closely related, primarily because crossbreed cattle in the region consist of Bos indicus breeds, and Gyr cattle have an important presence in the Caribbean region of Colombia. Notably, some of the farmer’s heifers registered ass crossbred show a closer relationship to the Gyr population; this observation underscores the lack of accurate records, which is a common situation in small livestock farmers. Global differences in PCA were 7.35%, and principal components explained 1.94 % and 5.41% of the variation (Figure 1). When the origin of the crossbred heifers (farm) was included in the PCA analysis to assess whether small-scale producers utilized different breeds in their farms according to specific production goals, no differences were detected, probably because the crossbreed cattle across the evaluated population were composed of similar breeds.
Consequently, with a widely dispersed genomic population, crossbred cattle had fewer ROH islands compared to the Gyr population, as illustrated in the Manhattan plot (Figure 2). Using the 50% threshold, five ROH islands were identified in crossbred heifers on BTA 2, 5, 7, 8, and 12, whereas the Gyr cattle showed 31 ROH islands distributed across BTA 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 29.
ROH islands were found because the SNPs are shared by more than 50% of crossbred heifers, serving as evidence of selection. These islands revealed 60 annotated genes (Table 1).
The majority of observed ROH classes were shorter than 2 Mb, 54% in crossbreed cattle and 47% in Gyr cattle (Table 2). The maximum number of ROH observed per cow was 105 in crossbreed cattle and 114 in Gyr cattle, while the minimum ROH for the same groups was 3 and 58, respectively.
Mean inbreeding values are low in both groups; individual inbreeding rates were 5.2% in crossbreed and 12% in Gyr cattle. Mean FROHCrh across the autosome was low, especially in crossbreed cattle, compared with the Gyr population, 7% and 12%, respectively; the highest mean values were found for BTA 5, 12, and 19, in both groups (Figure 3). These indicate that even in the pure breed, genetic diversity is high; these values are lower in the crossbreed group and similar in the pure breed group.
Both groups have similar allelic and genotypic frequencies for most of the evaluated commercial traits; only a wide variation was observed in the genes related to growth hormone (GH1) and Calpastatin (CAST_2870 and CAST_22959) (Table 3). Homozygote variants and desired alleles were less frequent in the evaluated population for genes of commercial importance in meat production, probably because crossbreed cattle in dual-purpose systems in the Colombian Caribbean region are not selected and raised for high average daily gains, and breeding with Bos taurus breeds specially for meat production is uncommon.

4. Discussion

The PCA results showed a clear differentiation between the two evaluated groups. This is evidence that small-scale producers try to maintain their purebred population, either as a personal preference or because Gyr cattle are a locally adapted breed that significantly improves farm milk yields. When only crossbred heifers were analyzed, no genetic differences were observed. These results are consistent with those reported by Toro-Ospina et al. [20], who found no genetic differentiation among Caqueteño Cattle (a local breed from Colombia) from different farms. Rosero et al. [10] registered that crossbreed cattle in dual-purpose systems in Colombia did not exhibit genetic separation compared with crossbreed individuals with a clear phenotype of Bos indicus or Bos taurus animals, which leads to the use of control breeds to define better the groups that constitute multiracial individuals; when these authors incorporated pure breeds in their genomic analysis, they observed that crossbreed cattle of Piedemonte Llanero-Colombia have predominance of Brahman, Gyr, and Holstein breeds.
The PCA results in the present study showed greater dispersion among crossbred individuals compared to the Gyr population. Indicating higher genetic variability, this outcome is expected because, historically, small-scale producers in dual-purpose systems of the Colombian Caribbean region, among their herds that have a high presence of various breeds of Bos indicus animals, can eventually include animals with greater Bos taurus influence, either as crossbred or purebred individuals. These results are similar to those reported by Naranjo et al. [21] in crossbreed cattle for milk production from various regions of Colombia, which exhibited greater genetic dispersion compared with pure breeds. In addition, the study also compared the genomic information of Brahman, Gyr, Brown Swiss, Holstein, Romosinuano, Jersey, and Senepol breeds, highlighting that crossbreed animals are in the center of these groups, revealing a multiplicity of lineages used for crossbreeding, with an important component of Brahman and Gyr breeds.
The wide genomic dispersion observed in crossbred cattle within dual-purpose systems in Colombia, through different breeds of Bos indicus and Bos taurus type, suggests a historically indiscriminate use of breeds in the absence of a breeding program [22].
The genes with an associated QTL were as follows: AHDC1, which could be related to body weight, energy metabolism, and clinical and subclinical ketosis [23,24]; TENT5B, involved in innate immune response [25]; GLYCAM1, which have an important role in regulating milk protein [26]; PEDE1B, identified as important to growth and carcass quality [27]; GTSF1, involved in reproduction processes through its role in the Argonaute proteins activity [28]; CALCOCO1, a gene candidate for meat quality in Angus cattle through cellular phosphate and glucose metabolism, as well as protein synthesis and degradation [29,30]; ATP5MC2, related with oxidative phosphorylation [31]; MOB3A and PIGO genes, which could be associated with weight gain and meat quality [32,33]; STARD13, a candidate gene for average daily gain (ADG) in cattle [34]; and PDS5B, a candidate gene for hematological parameters in Holstein [35]. No commercially important traits were observed in the ROH islands founded for the crossbreed heifer population evaluated, probably because very high production yields are not the principal selection criteria for small-scale producers of the region. Normally for them, it is more important to have resistant and adapted animals that can live and produce in an environment that does not always provide the resources for higher production levels or maintain specialized cattle.
In creole breeds raised in similar environmental conditions, it had been reported similar proportions of ROH length classes shorter than 2 Mb, 62.82% in the Caqueteño breed, and 76.0% in the Tropical milking Criollo breed [20,36]. In Gyr populations, Peripolli et al. [37] registered a proportion of 59.42% in the length class <2 Mb, indicating ancient inbreeding in both groups despite the lack of breeding programs.
Inbreeding values were similar to those registered by Martinez-Rocha et al. [36], in the Tropical milking Criollo, who reported a mean FROHCrh of 11.26%, and mean values across the autosome between 0 and 20%. FROH inbreeding can be higher in specialized breeds due to the high rate of selection to which they are subjected. Lozada-Soto et al. [38] reported a FROH between 15% and 17% in the Brown Swiss and Jersey Cattle, respectively, and Betancur-Zambrano et al. [39] reported a FROH of 28% in the Colombian Holstein cattle.
In dual-purpose cattle, the presence of desired commercial traits for both dairy and meat production is important. Among the genes of commercial interest for dairy production is Kappa casein (CSN3), where the BB allele is reported to improve cheese yield [40]. In the evaluated heifers, this allele is the least frequent, particularly in its homozygote form.
For Beta casein (CSN2), the A2A2 allele has been associated with enhanced production of essential amino acids and health benefits for humans [41], whereas the A1A1 allele is linked to the best milk quality for cheese production [42]. In the present study, the evaluated individuals showed high frequencies of the A2A2 allele, which is important in small-scale producers, where part of the milk produced is designated for self-consumption.
Regarding the Beta lactoglobulin (LGB), the presence of the A allele is associated with the best milk protein concentration (ideal for cheese making), whereas genotype BB is associated with better fats and casein content as well as high milk production [43]. In the evaluated population, the B allele was present at a high frequency in both groups.
For the CoA:diacylglycerol acyltransferase 1 (DGAT1), the AA variant codes for K lysine, which is associated with improved production of milk fat and protein [44]. The Gyr population showed a higher frequency of the AA variant compared to the crossbreed group. A similar trend was observed for the Growth hormone (GH1) gene, where the G allele has been reported as beneficial to milk composition and production [45], and Gyr group had a higher frequency of the GG variant compared to the crossbreed individuals.
In Calpain Genes (CAPN1_316, CAPN1_530, and CAPN1_4751), the desired alleles due to their relationship with meat tenderness are C, A, and C, respectively [46,47]. In the evaluated population, both crossbreed and Gyr cattle showed minimal frequencies of these alleles or, in some cases, their complete absence. Regarding the Calpastatin genes (CAST_282, CAST_2870, and CAST_2959), the desired alleles are C, G, and A, respectively [48], which in the evaluated population have frequencies close to 50%.

5. Conclusions

The evaluated population of crossbreed cattle in dual-purpose systems of the Colombian Caribbean Region showed a wide genomic dispersion, indicating high genetic diversity. No genomic differentiation was observed among individuals within the crossbreed group, probably because the evaluated crossbreed heifers are composed of similar breeds with a strong Bos indicus genetic component.
Despite a lack of accurate records and the absence of a breeding program, homozygous regions are short, and the inbreeding coefficient based on ROH is low even in heifers recorded as pure Gyr. A total of five ROH islands were detected; however, no genes with associated common QTLs were identified, indicating that probably the population has not been subjected to intense selection processes aimed at achieving high production yields in either milk or weight gains.
Nevertheless, crossbreed heifers have the desired allele frequencies for better milk production and quality in the genes CSN2, LGB, DGAT1, and GH1, as well as in the genes CAST_2870 and CAST_2959, which are important for meat production and tenderness.
Crossbreed cattle in the Colombian Caribbean region possess high genetic diversity and desirable allele frequencies to implement breeding and intense selection programs aimed at improving production yields. However, this should be in parallel with proper records management, improved feed and water supply, and the maintenance of optimal sanitary conditions to enhance gene expression for either milk or meat production.

Author Contributions

All authors made and validated the study and contributed to writing, methods, and the paper. Data curation and writing, A.R.-S. Review, supervision, and editing. M.A.-V. and J.M.C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the SGR “Sistema Nacional de Regalías” of the Colombian Government, under BPIN Code 021000100255.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable, the principles of replacement, reduction, and refinement from the NSW Government and the scientific procedures of the United Kingdom do not apply to the study conducted. However, the procedures carried out were designed to minimize stress in the animals. The animals used in the study were not experimental; they were animals native to the region, grazing under natural conditions and belonging to different producers. Neither the handling activities nor the living conditions of the individuals were altered for the collection of samples. The hair sample collection was conducted only once. The animals were confined for just 20 min to obtain the sample. The removal of follicles (taken from the tail) was harmless, painless, and instantaneous. After this, the individuals returned to their pastures and were not confined again.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to confidentiality.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the CTIE “Centro de Transferencia, Innovación y Emprendimiento” of the Universidad de Cartagena for the producers call for participation and research administration, and the SGR “Sistema general de regalías” of the Colombian government for funding this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ellegren, H.; Galtier, N. Determinants of Genetic Diversity. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2016, 17, 422–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Brito, L.F.; Bédère, N.; Douhard, F.; Oliveira, H.R.; Arnal, M.; Peñagaricano, F.; Schinckel, A.P.; Baes, C.F.; Miglior, F. Review: Genetic Selection of High-Yielding Dairy Cattle Toward Sustainable Farming Systems in a Rapidly Changing World. Animal 2021, 15, 100292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Herron, J.C.; Freeman, S. Mendelian Genetics in Populations II: Migration, Drift and Nonrandom Mating. In Evolutionary Analysis, 5th ed.; Pearson Education: London, UK, 2014; pp. 259–264. [Google Scholar]
  4. Groeneveld, L.F.; Lenstra, J.A.; Eding, H.; Toro, M.A.; Scherf, B.; Pilling, D.; Negrini, R.; Finlay, E.K.; Groeneveld, E.; Weigend, S. Genetic Diversity in Farm Animals—A Review. Anim. Genet. 2010, 41 (Suppl. S1), 6–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Makanjoula, B.O.; Maltecca, C.; Miglior, F.; Schenkel, F.S.; Baes, C.F. Effect of Recent and Ancient Inbreeding on Production and Fertility Traits in Canadian Holsteins. BMC Genom. 2020, 21, 605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Meuwissen, T.H.E. Maximizing the Response of Selection with a Predefined Rate of Inbreeding. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 75, 934–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. González-Quintero, R.; Barahona-Rosales, R.; Bolívar-Vergara, D.M.; Chirinda, N.; Arango, J.; Pantévez, H.A.; Correa-Londoño, G.; Sánchez-Pinzón, M.S. Technical and Environmental Characterization of Dual-Purpose Cattle Farms and Ways of Improving Production: A Case Study in Colombia. Pastoralism 2020, 10, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cortés Mora, J.A.; Cotes Torres, A.; Cotes Torres, J.M. Structural Features of Dual-Purpose Cattle Production System in the Colombian Humid Tropic. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu. 2012, 25, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. González-Quintero, R.; Sánchez-Pinzón, M.S.; Bolívar-Vergara, D.M.; Chirinda, N.; Arango, J.; Pantévez, H.A.; Correa-Londoño, G.; Barahona-Rosales, R. Technical and Environmental Characterization of Very Small, Small, Medium, and Large Cow-Calf Operations in Colombia. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2020, 11, 183–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rosero Alpala, J.A.; Rangel Garcia, W.D.; Rojas Barreto, A.; Burgos-Paz, W.O. Contribution of Genomic Data in Defining the Breed Composition of Dual-Purpose Cattle. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2021, 12, 1008–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Schwarz, L.; Križanac, A.M.; Schneider, H.; Falker-Gieske, C.; Heise, J.; Liu, Z.; Bennewitz, J.; Thaller, G.; Tetens, J. Genetic and Genomic Analysis of Reproduction Traits in Holstein Cattle Using SNP Chip Data and Imputed Sequence Level Genotypes. BMC Genom. 2024, 25, 880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Berry, D.P.; Spangler, M.L. Animal Board Invited Review: Practical Applications of Genomic Information in Livestock. Animal 2023, 17, 100996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bernini, F.; Punturiero, C.; Vevey, M.; Blanchet, V.; Milanesi, R.; Delledonne, A.; Bagnato, A.; Strillacci, M.G. Assessing Major Genes Allele Frequencies and the Genetic Diversity of the Native Aosta Cattle Female Population. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2023, 22, 1008–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Igoshin, A.V.; Romashov, G.A.; Chernyaeva, E.N.; Elatkin, N.P.; Yudin, N.S.; Larkin, D.M. Comparative Analysis of Allele Frequencies for DNA Polymorphisms Associated with Disease and Economically Important Traits in the Genomes of Russian and Foreign Cattle Breeds. Russ. J. Genet. 2022, 26, 298–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lopdell, T.J. Using QTL to Identify Genes and Pathways Underlying the Regulation and Production of Milk Components in Cattle. Animals 2023, 13, 911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Purcell, S.; Neale, B.; Todd-Brown, K.; Thomas, L.; Ferreira, M.A.R.; Bender, D.; Maller, J.; Sklar, P.; de Bakker, P.I.W.; Daly, M.J.; et al. PLINK: A Tool Set for Whole-Genome Association and Population-Based Linkage Analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2007, 81, 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Biscarini, F.; Cozzi, P.; Gaspa, G.; Marras, G. detectRUNS: Detect Runs of Homozygosity and Runs of Heterozygosity in Diploid Genomes. R Package 2019; Institute for Statistics and Mathematics, Vienna University of Economics and Business: Vienna, Austria, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  18. McQuillan, R.; Leutenegger, A.-L.; Abdel-Rahman, R.; Franklin, C.S.; Pericic, M.; Barac-Lauc, L.; Smolej-Narancic, N.; Janicijevic, B.; Polasek, O.; Tenesa, A.; et al. Runs of Homozygosity in European Populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2008, 83, 359–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cesarani, A.; Sorbolini, S.; Criscione, A.; Bordonaro, S.; Pulina, G.; Battacone, G.; Marletta, D.; Gaspa, G.; Macciotta, N.P.P. Genome-wide Variability and Selection Signatures in Italian Island Cattle Breeds. Anim. Genet. 2018, 49, 371–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Toro-Ospina, A.M.; Herrera Rios, A.C.; Pimenta Schettini, G.; Vallejo Aristizabal, V.H.; Bizarria dos Santos, W.; Zapata, C.A.; Ortiz Morea, E.G. Identification of Runs of Homozygosity Islands and Genomic Estimated Inbreeding Values in Caqueteño Creole Cattle (Colombia). Genes 2022, 13, 1232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Naranjo Guerrero, L.F.; Rogberg-Muñoz, A.; Rodríguez, N.; González Herrera, L.G. Genomic Diversity Study of Highly Crossbred Cattle Population in a Low and Middle Tropical Environment. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2024, 56, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Galina, C.S.; Geffroy, M. Dual-Purpose Cattle Raised in Tropical Conditions: What Are Their Shortcomings in Sound Productive and Reproductive Function? Animals 2023, 13, 2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Soares, B.D.; Vargas, G.; Duffield, T.; Schenkel, F.; Squires, E.J. Genome-wide Association Study and Functional Analyses for Clinical and Subclinical Ketosis in Holstein Cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2021, 104, 6789–6802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Li, L.; Shao, S.; Wang, Y.; Du, Z.; Yu, H.; Li, F.; Qin, Y. Ahdc1 is a Potent Regulator of Obesity and Energy Metabolism. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 2023, 325, E638–E648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Liudkovska, V.; Krawczyk, P.S.; Brouze, A.; Gumińska, N.; Wegierski, T.; Cysewski, D.; Mackiewicz, Z.; Ewbank, J.J.; Drabikowski, K.; Mroczek, S.; et al. TENT5 Cytoplasmic Noncanonical Poly(A) Polymerases Regulate the Innate Immune Response in Animals. Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eadd9468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, J.; Huang, X.; Chen, Q.; Lei, X. Non-Additive Association of the Rs41257413 SNP in the GLYCAM1 Gene with Milk Protein Percentage in Chinese Holstein Cattle. SSRN 2025, 20, 5129267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shin, S.; Heo, J.; Yeo, J.; Lee, C.; Chung, E. Genetic Association of Phosphodiesterase 1B (PDE1B) with Carcass Traits in Korean Cattle. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2012, 39, 4869–4874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Arif, A.; Bailey, S.; Izumi, N.; Anzelon, T.A.; Ozata, D.M.; Andersson, C.; Gainetdinov, I.; MacRae, I.J.; Tomari, Y.; Zamore, P.D. GTSF1 Accelerates Target RNA Cleavage by PIWI-Clade Argonaute Proteins. Nature 2022, 608, 618–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mateescu, R.G.; Garrick, D.J.; Reecy, J.M. Network Analysis Reveals Putative Genes Affecting Meat Quality in Angus Cattle. Front. Genet. 2017, 8, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wu, J.; Wu, T.; Xie, X.; Niu, Q.; Zhao, Z.; Zhu, B.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, L.; Gao, X.; Niu, X.; et al. Genetic Association Analysis of Copy Number Variations for Meat Quality in Beef Cattle. Foods 2023, 12, 3986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jiang, W.; Mooney, M.H.; Shirali, M. Unveiling the Genetic Landscape of Feed Efficiency in Holstein Dairy Heifers: Insights into Heritability, Genetic Markers, and Pathways via Meta-Analysis. J. Anim. Sci. 2024, 102, skae040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Carvalheiro, R.; Costilla, R.; Neves, H.H.R.; Albuquerque, L.G.; Moore, S.; Hayes, B.J. Unraveling Genetic Sensitivity of Beef Cattle to Environmental Variation Under Tropical Conditions. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2019, 51, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, Y.; Yang, M.; Lou, A.; Yun, J.; Ren, C.; Li, X.; Xia, G.; Nam, K.; Yoon, D.; Jin, H.; et al. Integrated Analysis of Expression Profiles with Meat Quality Traits in Cattle. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 5926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Zhang, W.; Li, J.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, L.; Xu, L.; Gao, X.; Zhu, B.; Gao, H.; Ni, H.; Chen, Y. Multi-Strategy Genome-Wide Association Studies Identify the DCAF16-NCAPG Region as a Susceptibility Locus for Average Daily Gain in Cattle. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Yang, T.; Luo, H.; Lou, W.; Chang, Y.; Brito, L.F.; Zhang, H.; Ma, L.; Hu, L.; Wang, A.; Li, S. Genetic Background of Hematological Parameters in Holstein Cattle Based on Genome-Wide Association and RNA Sequencing Analyses. J. Dairy Sci. 2024, 107, 24345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Martínez-Rocha, R.; Hidalgo, J.; Cesarani, A.; Ramírez-Valverde, R.; Núñez-Domínguez, R.; García-Muñiz, J.G.; Domínguez-Viveros, J. Assessment of Genetic Diversity, Runs of Homozygosity, and Signatures of Selection in Tropical Milking Criollo Cattle Using Pedigree and Genomic Data. Genes 2022, 13, 1896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Peripolli, E.; Stafuzza, N.B.; Munari, D.P.; Lima, A.L.F.; Irgang, R.; Machado, M.A.; Panetto, J.C.D.C.; Ventura, R.V.; Baldi, F.; da Silva, M.V.G.B. Assessment of Runs of Homozygosity Islands and Estimates of Genomic Inbreeding in Gyr (Bos indicus) Dairy Cattle. BMC Genom. 2018, 19, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lozada-Soto, E.A.; Tiezzi, F.; Jiang, J.; Cole, J.B.; VanRaden, P.M.; Maltecca, C. Genomic Characterization of Autozygosity and Recent Inbreeding Trends in All Major Breeds of US Dairy Cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 8956–8971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Betancur Zambrano, M.F.; Rincón Flórez, J.C.; Herrera Rios, A.C.; Solarte Portilla, C.E.; Bedoya Berrio, G. de J. Evaluation of Runs of Homozygosity and Genomic Inbreeding in Holstein Cattle from Colombia. Semin. Ciências Agrárias 2020, 41 (Suppl. S2), 3397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rosero, J.A.; Álvarez, L.A.; Muñoz, J.E.; Durán, C.V.; Rodas, Á.G. Allelic Frequency of the Kappa-Casein Gene in Colombian and Creole Cattle Breeds. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Pecu. 2012, 25, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. de Vitte, K.; Kerziene, S.; Klementavičiūtė, J.; de Vitte, M.; Mišeikienė, R.; Kudlinskienė, I.; Čepaitė, J.; Dilbiene, V.; Stankevičius, R. Relationship of β-casein Genotypes (A1A1, A1A2, and A2A2) to the Physicochemical Composition and Sensory Characteristics of Heifers’ Milk. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2022, 50, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bisutti, V.; Pegolo, S.; Giannuzzi, D.; Mota, L.F.M.; Vanzin, A.; Toscano, A.; Trevisi, E.; Ajmone Marsan, P.; Brasca, M.; Cecchinato, A. The β-casein (CSN2) A2 Allelic Variant Alters Milk Protein Profile and Slightly Worsens Coagulation Properties in Holstein Heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 2022, 105, 3794–3809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Andrade Ortega, S.G.; López Flores, J.O.; Sánchez Gómez, I.E. Allelic and Genotypic Frequencies of the Kappa Casein and βeta Lactoglobulin Gene in Brown Swiss Cattle. Calera 2021, 21, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bobbo, T.; Cipolat-Gotet, C.; Bittante, G.; Cecchinato, A. Short Communication: Association Analysis of Diacylglycerol Acyltransferase (DGAT1) Mutation on Chromosome 14 for Milk Yield and Composition Traits, Somatic Cell Score, and Coagulation Properties in Holstein Bulls. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 7075–7081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Echeverri Zuluaga, J.J.; Vázquez Araque, N.A.; Gallo Garcia, Y.M. Polimorfismo del gen de la Somatotropina Bovina y su asociación con características de importancia en la producción lechera. Rev. Lasallista Investig. 2010, 7, 67–76. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bonilla, C.A.; Rubio, M.S.; Sifuentes, A.M.; Parra-Bracamonte, G.M.; Arellano, V.W.; Méndez, M.R.D.; Berruecos, J.M.; Ortiz, R. Association of CAPN1 316, CAPN1 4751 and TG5 Markers with Bovine Meat Quality Traits in Mexico. Genet. Mol. Res. 2010, 9, 2395–2405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Desgarennes Alcalá, C.M.; Del Moral Ventura, S.; Meza Villalvazo, V.M.; Peña Castro, J.M.; Zárate Martínez, J.P.; Zavaleta, J.A. Allelic and Genotypic Frequencies of CAPN1 and CAST, Two Genes Associated to Meat Quality, in Cattle from the Papaloapan Basin. Nova Sci. 2017, 9, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Casas, E.; White, S.N.; Wheeler, T.L.; Shackelford, S.D.; Koohmaraie, M.; Riley, D.G.; Chase, C.C., Jr.; Johnson, D.D.; Smith, T.P.L. Effects of Calpastatin and μ-Calpain Markers in Beef Cattle on Tenderness Traits. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 84, 520–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Genes 16 00677 g001
Figure 1. Population groups according to principal component analysis (PCA).
Figure 1. Population groups according to principal component analysis (PCA).
Genes 16 00677 g001
Genes 16 00677 g002
Figure 2. SNP frequency within run of homozygosity in the autosome of crossbreed and Gyr cattle in the Caribbean region of Colombia.
Figure 2. SNP frequency within run of homozygosity in the autosome of crossbreed and Gyr cattle in the Caribbean region of Colombia.
Genes 16 00677 g002
Genes 16 00677 g003
Figure 3. Inbreeding based on ROH among the autosome of crossbreed and Gyr cattle from the Colombian Caribbean region.
Figure 3. Inbreeding based on ROH among the autosome of crossbreed and Gyr cattle from the Colombian Caribbean region.
Genes 16 00677 g003
Table 1. Description of the ROH islands detected in the autosomal genome of the crossbreed cattle population in the Colombian Caribbean Region.
Table 1. Description of the ROH islands detected in the autosomal genome of the crossbreed cattle population in the Colombian Caribbean Region.
BTAnSNPFromToAssociated Gene
222125,691,492126,383,381FGR, AHDC1, WASF2, MAP3K6, TMEM222, SYYL1, GPN2, KDF1, TENT5B
55225,259,92526,964,045GLYCAM1, PDE1B, GTSF1, COPZ1, MAP3K12, TF7, CALCOCO1, HOXC4-8-10-11-13, SMUG1, ATP5MC2
75119,764,73921,612,020FSD1, NMRK2, ATCAY, DAPK3, TEKTIP1, GIPC3, SHF ANKRD24, SHD, TMIGD2, MATK, CELF5, NCLN, TLE6, MOB3A, S1PR4, APBA3
85158,010,69459,902,102RHF32, SPATA31G1, PIGO, STOML2, ATOSB, RUSC2, CIMIP2B, TESK1, CD72, SIT1
124827,933,50329,563,846STARD13, KL, PDS5B, N4BP2L2, ZAR1L, FRY, RXFP2
Table 2. Number (nROH) and mean length (in Mb) of the ROH islands in different length classes.
Table 2. Number (nROH) and mean length (in Mb) of the ROH islands in different length classes.
Group <22–44–88–16>16
Crossbreedn ROH14,29093992028663181
Mean length1.452.645.410.8523.5
Gyrn ROH24931860529236142
Mean length1.442.685.4211.1926.11
Table 3. Genomic and allelic frequencies for commercial traits in crossbreed and Gyr cattle from the Colombian Caribbean region.
Table 3. Genomic and allelic frequencies for commercial traits in crossbreed and Gyr cattle from the Colombian Caribbean region.
GENSNP IDDescriptionGenotypic FrequenciesAllelic Frequencies
GyrCrossGyrCrossGyrCrossGyrCrossGyrCross
A1A1A1A2A2A2A1A2
CSN2rs43703013Beta Casein0.000.000.170.080.830.920.080.040.920.96
rs437030110.020.010.190.170.80.820.110.090.890.91
AAABBBAB
CSN3rs43706475Kappa Casein1.001.000.000.000.000.001.001.000.000.00
rs1100145440.780.800.220.190.000.010.890.110.890.11
LGBrs110180463Beta lactoglobulin0.000.010.020.170.980.90.010.100.990.82
rs1100662290.190.110.460.480.360.410.420.350.580.65
rs1106413660.000.060.100.420.900.510.050.270.950.73
rs1096256490.170.100.470.480.360.420.410.340.590.66
CoA:diacylglycerol acyltransferase 1AAAGGGAG
DGAT1rs1092342500.840.650.140.310.020.040.910.810.090.19
Growth hormoneTTTGGGTG
GH1rs1091910470.000.500.200.350.980.600.010.220.990.78
CAPN1_316rs17872000CalpainCCCGGGCG
0.000.000.000.101.000.900.000.051.000.95
CAPN1_530rs17871051AAAGGGAG
0.000.000.070.120.930.880.030.060.970.94
CAPN1_4571rs17872050TTTCCCTG
0.730.690.270.270.000.030.860.830.140.17
CAST_282rs110955059CalpastatinCCCGGGCG
0.290.260.420.530.290.220.500.520.500.48
AAAGGGAG
CAST_22870rs412555870.050.190.270.510.580.300.190.450.810.55
CAST_22959rs1092210390.690.390.290.480.020.130.840.630.160.37
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rodríguez-Serrano, A.; Ahumada-Velasco, M.; Cárdenas Beltrán, J.M. Assessment of Genetic Diversity and Productive Traits in Crossbreed Cattle in the Caribbean Region, Colombia. Genes 2025, 16, 677. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16060677

AMA Style

Rodríguez-Serrano A, Ahumada-Velasco M, Cárdenas Beltrán JM. Assessment of Genetic Diversity and Productive Traits in Crossbreed Cattle in the Caribbean Region, Colombia. Genes. 2025; 16(6):677. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16060677

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rodríguez-Serrano, Andrés, Marcos Ahumada-Velasco, and Jesús María Cárdenas Beltrán. 2025. "Assessment of Genetic Diversity and Productive Traits in Crossbreed Cattle in the Caribbean Region, Colombia" Genes 16, no. 6: 677. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16060677

APA Style

Rodríguez-Serrano, A., Ahumada-Velasco, M., & Cárdenas Beltrán, J. M. (2025). Assessment of Genetic Diversity and Productive Traits in Crossbreed Cattle in the Caribbean Region, Colombia. Genes, 16(6), 677. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes16060677

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop