Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T23:04:25.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Inbreeding effects on in vitro embryo production traits in Guzerá cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2017

B. C. Perez ,
J. C. C. Balieiro ,
R. V. Ventura ,
F. A. T. Bruneli  and
M. G. C. D. Peixoto
B. C. Perez*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Sciences, College of Animal Science and Food Engineering, University of São Paulo (FZEA/USP), Pirassununga, 13630-000 São Paulo, Brazil
J. C. C. Balieiro
Affiliation:
College of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of São Paulo (FMVZ/USP), Pirassununga, 13630-000 São Paulo, Brazil
R. V. Ventura
Affiliation:
Beef Improvement Opportunities (BIO), Elora, N1K 1E5 ON, Canada Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, N1G 2W1 ON, Canada
F. A. T. Bruneli
Affiliation:
National Centre of Research on Dairy Cattle, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation(CNPGL/EMBRAPA), Juiz de Fora, 36038-330 Minas Gerais, Brazil
M. G. C. D. Peixoto
Affiliation:
National Centre of Research on Dairy Cattle, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation(CNPGL/EMBRAPA), Juiz de Fora, 36038-330 Minas Gerais, Brazil
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Inbreeding has been associated with the impairment of reproductive performance in many cattle breeds. Although the usage of reproductive biotechnologies has been increasing in bovine populations, not much attention has been given to the impact of inbreeding over cow’s performance on artificial reproduction. The objective of this study was to estimate the impact of inbreeding on in vitro embryo production in a Guzerá breed population. The inbreeding coefficient (F), calculated as half of the co-ancestry of the individual’s parents, was used as an estimate of inbreeding. The inbreeding coefficients of the donor, sire (used on in vitro fertilization) and of the embryos were included, separately, in the proposed models either as classificatory or continuous variables (linear and quadratic effects). The percentage of non-inbred individuals (or embryos) and mean F of donors, embryos and sires were 29.38%; 35.76%; 42.86% and 1.98±2.68; 1.32±3.13; 2.08±2.79, respectively. Two different models were considered, one for oocyte production traits and other for embryo production traits. The increase of F of the donor significantly (P<0.05) impaired the number of viable oocytes (NOV), number of grade I oocytes (NGI) and number of cleaved embryos (NCLV). Moreover, the donor’s F influenced the percentage of grade I oocytes (PGI), percentage of viable embryos (PEMB) and percentage of cleaved embryos that turned into embryos (PCXE). No significant (P>0.05) effects were observed for the sire (father of the embryos) inbreeding coefficient over the traits analysed. Embryo’s F influenced (P<0.05) the number of viable embryos (NEMB), percentage of viable embryos (PEMB) and percentage of cleaved embryos that turn into embryos (PCXE). Results suggested that an increase in the inbreeding coefficient might impair the embryos ability to survive through challenges imposed by the in vitro environment. Submitting highly inbred Guzerá female donors to in vitro embryo production may, in the long-term, have negative implications on the number of embryos obtained per cow and increase the relative costs of the improvement programmes based on this technology. High levels of inbreeding should be avoided when selecting Guzerá female donors and planning in vitro fertilization mating.

Keywords

bovine artificial reproductioninbreeding depressionovum pick-upin vitro fertilizationzebu cattle
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 11 , November 2017 , pp. 1983 - 1990
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

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

Alvarez, RH, da Silva, MVGB, Carvalho, JBP and Binelli, M 2005. Effects of inbreeding on ovarian responses and embryo production from superovulated Mantiqueira cows. Theriogenology 64, 1669–1676.Google Scholar
Bamber, RL, Shook, GE, Wiltbank, MC, Santos, JE and Fricke, PM 2009. Genetic parameters for anovulation and pregnancy loss in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 92, 5739–5753.Google Scholar
Baruselli, PS, Vieira, LM, Batista, EOS, Ferreira, RM, Sales, JNS, Gimenes, LU, Torres, JRS Jr, Martins, CM, Sá filho, MF and Bó, GA 2015. Updates on embryo production strategies. Animal Reproduction 12, 375–382.Google Scholar
Bezdíček, J, Stádník, L, Makarevich, A, Kubovičová, E, Louda, F, Hegedüšová, Z, Holásek, R, Beran, J and Nejdlová, M 2014. Effect of inbreeding on yield and quality of embryos recovered from superovulated Holstein cows. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Science 38, 681–685.Google Scholar
Carthy, TR, Ryan, DP, Fitzgerald, AM, Evans, RD and Berry, DP 2015. Genetic parameters of ovarian and uterine reproductive traits in dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 4095–4106.Google Scholar
Cassel, BG, Adamec, V and Pearson, RE 2003. Effect of incomplete pedigrees on estimates of inbreeding and inbreeding depression for days to first service and summit milk yield in Holsteins and Jerseys. Journal of Dairy Science 81, 2299–2305.Google Scholar
Coyral-Castel, S, Brisard, D, Touze, JL, Dupont, M, Rame, C, Uzbekoya, S and Dupont, J 2012. Analysis of in vivo oocyte maturation, in vitro embryo development and gene expression in cumulus cells of dairy cows and heifers selected for one fertility quantitative trait loci (QTL) located on BTA3. Theriogenology 77 (9), 1822–1833.Google Scholar
Coyral-Castel, S, Ramé, C, Monniaux, D, Fréret, S, Fabre-Nys, C, Fritz, S, Monget, P, Dupont, F and Dupont, J 2011. Ovarian parameters and fertility of dairy cows selected for one QTL located on BTA3. Theriogenology 75, 1239–1250.Google Scholar
Croquet, C, Mayeres, P, Gillon, A, Hammami, H, Soyuert, H, Vanderick, S and Gengler, N 2007. Linear and curvilinear effects of inbreeding on production traits for Walloon Holstein cows. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 465–471.Google Scholar
Crow, JF and Kimura, M 1970. An introduction to population genetics theory. Harper & Row, New York, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Dickerson, GE 1963. Experimental evaluation of selection theory in poultry. In Genetics Today, Proceedings of the International Congress of Genetics, 11, The Hague, Holand, pp. 747–761.Google Scholar
Falconer, DS and Mackay, TFC 1996. Introduction to quantitative genetics. Longman Group, Essex, UK.Google Scholar
Gilmour, AR, Gogel, BJ, Cullis, BR and Thompson, R 2014. ASReml User Guide Release 4.0 VSN International Ltd, Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1ES, UK. www.vsni.co.uk Google Scholar
González-Recio, O, López De Maturana, E and Gutiérrez, JP 2007. Inbreeding depression of female fertility and calving ease in Spanish dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 5744–5752.Google Scholar
Gredler, B, Fuerst, C, Fuerst-Waltl, B, Schwarzenbacher, H and Sölkner, J 2007. Genetic parameters for semen production traits in Austrian dual-purpose simmental bulls. Reproduction in Domestic Animals 42, 326–328.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, D and Thaller, G 2011. Pedigree analysis and inbreeding effects on calving traits in large dairy herds in Germany. Journal of Dairy Science 94, 4726–4733.Google Scholar
Jaton, C, Koeck, A, Sargolzaei, M, Malchiodi, F, Price, CA, Schenkel, FSS and Miglior, F 2016. Genetic analysis of superovulatory response of Holstein cows in Canada. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 1–12.Google Scholar
Lynch, M and Walsh, B 1998. Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, USA.Google Scholar
Malécot, G 1948. Les mathématiques de l’hérédité. Masson & Cie, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Maximini, L, Fuerst-Waltl, B, Gredler, B and Baumung, R 2011. Inbreeding depression on semen quality in Austrian dual-purpose simmental bulls. Reproduction of Domestic Animals 46, 102–114.Google Scholar
Mendonça, AS, Guimarães, ALS, da Silva, NMA, Caetano, RA, Dode, MAN and Franco, MM 2015. Characterization of the IGF2 imprinted gene methylation status in bovine oocytes during folliculogenesis. Plos One 10, e0142072.Google Scholar
Merton, JS, Ask, B, Onkundi, DC, Mullaart, E, Colenbrander, B and Nielen, M 2009. Genetic parameters for oocyte number and embryo production within a bovine ovum pick-up – in vitro production embryo-production program. Theriogenology 72, 885–893.Google Scholar
Meuwissen, THE and Luo, Z 1992. Computing inbreeding coefficients in large populations. Genetics Selection Evolution 24, 305–313.Google Scholar
Mc Parland, S, Kearney, JF, Rath, M and Berry, DP 2007. Inbreeding effects on milk production, calving performance, fertility, and conformation in Irish Holstein-Friesians. Journal of Dairy Science 90, 4411–4419.Google Scholar
Peixoto, MGCD, Pereira, CS, Bergmann, JAG, Penna, VM and Fonseca, CG 2004. Genetic parameters of multiple ovulation traits in Nellore females. Theriogenology 62, 1459–1464.Google Scholar
Perez, BC, Peixoto, MGCD, Bruneli, FT, Ramos, PVB and Balieiro, JCC 2016. Genetic analysis of oocyte and embryo production traits in Guzerá breed donors and their associations with age at first calving. Genetics and Molecular Research 15, 15027583.Google Scholar
Rokouei, M, Vaez Torshizi, R, Moradi Shahrbabak, M, Sargolzaei, M and Sørensen, AC 2010. Monitoring inbreeding trend and inbreeding depression for economically important traits of Holstein cattle in Iran. Journal of Dairy Science 93, 3294–3302.Google Scholar
Santana, ML Jr, Lopes, PS, Verneque, RS, Pereira, RJ, Lagrotta, MR and Peixoto, MGCD 2010. Genetic parameters for reproductive traits of dairy Gyr breed males and females. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 39, 1717–1722.Google Scholar
Seneda, MM, Esper, CR, Garcia, JM, Oliveira, JÁ and Vantini, R 2001. Relationship between follicle size and ultrasound-guided transvaginal oocyte recovery. Animal Reproduction Science 67, 37–43.Google Scholar
Strøebech, L, Mazzoni, G, Pedersen, HS, Freude, KK, Kadarmideen, HN, Callesen, H and Hyttel, P 2015. In vitro production of bovine embryos: revisiting oocyte development and application of systems biology. Animal Reproduction 12, 465–472.Google Scholar
Tveden-Nyborg, Y, Alexopoulos, NI, Cooney, MA, French, AJ, Tecirlioglu, RT, Holland, MK, Thomsen, PD and D’Cruz, NT 2008. Analysis of the expression of putative imprinted genes in bovine peri-implentation embryos. Theriogenology 70, 1119–1128.Google Scholar
Van Raden, PM and Miller, RH 2006. Effects of non-additive genetic interactions, inbreeding, and recessive defects on embryo and fetal loss by seventy days. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2716–2721.Google Scholar
Vishwanath, R and Shannon, P 2000. Storage of bovine semen in liquid and frozen state. Animal Reproduction Science 62, 23–53.Google Scholar
West, BT, Welch, KB and Galecki, AT 2007. Linear mixed models: a practical guide using statistical software. Chapman & Hall, New York, 376 pp.Google Scholar