Power of exclusion for parentage verification and probability of match for identity in American kennel club breeds using 17 canine microsatellite markers

Abstract

DNA analysis of microsatellite markers has become a common tool for verifying parentage in breed registries and identifying individual animals that are linked to a database or owner. Panels of markers have been developed in canines, but their utility across and within a wide range of breeds has not been reported. The American Kennel Club (AKC) authorized a study to determine the power to exclude non-parents and identify individuals using DNA genotypes of 17 microsatellite markers in two panels. Cheek swab samples were voluntarily collected at Parent Breed Club National Specialty dog shows and 9561 samples representing 108 breeds were collected, averaging 88.5 dogs per breed. The primary panel of 10 markers exceeded 99% power of exclusion for canine parentage verification of 61% of the breeds. In combination with the secondary panel of seven markers, 100% of the tested breeds exceeded 99% power of exclusion. The minimum probability match rate of the first panel was 3.6 x 10(-5) averaged across breeds, and with the addition of the second panel, the probability match rate was 3.2 x 10(-8); thus the probability of another random, unrelated dog with the same genotype is very low. The results of this analysis indicated that, on average, the primary panel meets the AKC's needs for routine parentage testing, but that a combination of 10-15 genetic markers from the two panels could yield a universal canine panel with enhanced processing efficiency, reliability and informativeness.

Unequal Contribution of Sexes in the Origin of Dog Breeds

“…A panel of just 18 markers allowed us to correctly assign almost all dogs belonging to 20 breeds and dogs belonging to the same breed had very similar genotypes. Similar results have been found previously by a number of researchers (Zajc and Sampson 1999;Koskinen 2003;DeNise et al 2004;Parker et al 2004). However, no such clear breed differentiation was observed for mtDNA (see also Vilà et al 1999a;Savolainen et al 2002) or Y chromosome markers.…”

“…However, this long history contrasts with the results of genetic studies, which suggest that most of the current breeds may represent a recent radiation from a common stock and that distinct breeds may have been formed from ''less codified phenotypic varieties after the introduction of the breed concept and the creation of breed clubs in Europe in the 1800s'' (Parker et al 2004(Parker et al , p. 1164. The genetic comparison of dog breeds using autosomal markers shows that breeds constitute well-defined entities, differentiated from each other (Zajc and Sampson 1999;Koskinen 2003;DeNise et al 2004;Parker et al 2004). On the other hand, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) comparisons fail to show clear differentiation between breeds (Okumura et al 1996;Vilà et al 1997Vilà et al , 1999aSavolainen et al 2002).…”

Genetic characterization of four native Italian shepherd dog breeds and analysis of their relationship to cosmopolitan dog breeds using microsatellite markers

“…Autosomal microsatellites have been utilized to study genetic diversity in several dog breeds, primarily for the purposes of determining the power of exclusion for parentage applications (Altet et al, 2001;DeNise et al, 2004). Autosomal microsatellites have also been utilized to study genetic diversity in several dog breeds.…”

Genetic selection for reduced somatic cell counts in sheep milk: A review

“…As an alternative, it may be possible to use DNA testing for pedigree verification or pedigree assignment in cases of unrecorded mating or the use of multiple sires. Procedures have been already developed for both goats and sheep (Glowatzki-Mullis et al, 2007;Rosa et al, 2013), as well as dogs (DeNise et al, 2004), horses (Tozaki et al, 2001;Seyedabadi et al, 2006) and cattle (Van Eenennaam et al, 2007).…”