- THIS ARTICLE
-
Abstract
- Full Text (PDF)
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via HighWire
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Moazami-Goudarzi, K.
- Articles by Laloë, D.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Moazami-Goudarzi, K.
- Articles by Laloë, D.
Is a Multivariate Consensus Representation of Genetic Relationships Among Populations Always Meaningful?
K. Moazami-Goudarzia and D. Laloëba Laboratoire de Génétique Biochimique et de Cytogénétique, INRA, 78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France
b Station de Génétique Quantitative et Appliquée, INRA, 78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France
Corresponding author: D. Laloë, INRA, Domaine de vilvert, 78352 Jouy-en-Josas, France., ugendla{at}dga2.jouy.inra.fr (E-mail)
Communicating editor: C. HALEY
| ABSTRACT |
|---|
To determine the relationships among closely related populations or species, two methods are commonly used in the literature: phylogenetic reconstruction or multivariate analysis. The aim of this article is to assess the reliability of multivariate analysis. We describe a method that is based on principal component analysis and Mantel correlations, using a two-step process: The first step consists of a single-marker analysis and the second step tests if each marker reveals the same typology concerning population differentiation. We conclude that if single markers are not congruent, the compromise structure is not meaningful. Our model is not based on any particular mutation process and it can be applied to most of the commonly used genetic markers. This method is also useful to determine the contribution of each marker to the typology of populations. We test whether our method is efficient with two real data sets based on microsatellite markers. Our analysis suggests that for closely related populations, it is not always possible to accept the hypothesis that an increase in the number of markers will increase the reliability of the typology analysis.
ANALYSIS of genetic relationships is useful for phylogenetic or biodiversity studies. For this purpose, it is customary to use genetic markers such as protein and blood group polymorphisms or DNA markers. Generally, the approach for the genetic analysis of these data consists of calculating genetic distances and constructing trees. For example, ![]()
![]()
On the basis of theoretical studies, ![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Alternatively, representations of the genetic relationships among populations may be obtained by using multivariate procedures. These techniques condense the information from several alleles and loci into a few synthetic variables. The connection between tree procedures and multivariate procedures is close (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Multivariate procedures are particularly attractive when admixtures are known to have occurred among the populations under study, because construction of trees using admixed populations contradicts the principles of phylogeny reconstruction (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
However, the reliability of multivariate analysis is never discussed. In this article, we investigate this problem by addressing the following specific questions: Is the consensus representation meaningful? Which markers influence the typology of populations? Finally, we study their interest and efficiency with bovine data.
| MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
Fisher's exact test:
Equality of allelic frequencies per breed was tested for each marker by a Fisher's exact test of independence. P values were estimated by a Monte Carlo procedure (![]()
Principal component analysis:
Among the many multidimensional analysis methods, principal component analysis (PCA) offers a simple and powerful mode of analysis of a set of population-by-gene frequency data. A detailed presentation of the general method can be found, for instance, in ![]()
Let us consider g populations and an n-allelic marker. pik denotes the allelic frequency of the kth allele in the ith population, and p.k the mean allelic frequency of the kth allele in all the populations. As advocated by CAVALLI-SFORZA et al. (1994) the use of an a priori standardization of the allelic frequencies pik by their estimated standard deviation
k = [p.k (1 - p.k)]1/2, can be expected to improve the recovery of information. This standardization emphasizes contribution of rare alleles. The general term of the array X of standardized allelic frequencies is then equal to xik = (pik - p·k)/
k. This standardization is used throughout this article.
Each population is represented by a point in an m-dimensional space, the coordinates of which are the m standardized allelic frequencies. The core of the PCA is to find the most scattered directions, or principal components, of this cloud of points. Principal components (PCs) are eigenvectors of the variance-covariance matrix of standardized allelic frequencies. The sum of the eigenvalues is the trace of this matrix and it is sometimes called "total variance." PCs are ranked according to the fraction of total variance that each of them can independently explain: For instance, the first PC is by definition more informative than the second PC and all the PCs are independent from each other.
This method can be applied to the allelic frequencies of one marker (single-marker analysis) or of several markers (overall analysis) to get the induced typology of populations.
Relationships among single-marker analyses:
Phylogenetic studies typically involve several markers and lead to several typologies, trees, or multidimensional plots. The first problem is to evaluate the relationship among these typologies, which is commonly called "interstructure." Use of PCA leads to an implicit euclidean distance between populations i and j:

Note that it is equal to the square root of the distance of Barker (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Relative positions of markers in this circle indicate the magnitude of association between these markers. For instance, if all markers are positively correlated, their correlations with the first axis are positive, and they will be positioned to the right half of the circle. If diagonalizing this matrix, Perron-Frobenius theorem ensures that all the coefficients of the first principal component are positive (e.g., ![]()
Test of structure congruence:
If single-marker structures are not congruent, no compromise structure will exist, Mantel correlations between distances will be indiscriminately positive or negative, and the sum S of all the m(m - 1) Mantel correlations among the distances will not be significantly different from 0. To test the significance of S, a randomization test is conducted as follows: (1) calculation of the observed statistic Sobs, (2) random permutation of entire rows of each table X of standardized allelic frequencies, and (3) recalculation of Srnd values. The probability that no compromise exists is calculated as (number of Srnd
Sobs + 1)/(number of randomizations + 1). The 1 in the numerator and the denominator represents the observed value for the statistic being evaluated, which is considered as a possible value of the randomization distribution.
Another method (![]()

If no congruent typology exists among the populations, they are roughly equidistant from each other, and there is no significant difference between the mean distances dij.
The null hypothesis H0 is then: All distances are equal. Conversely, if some typology exists, the alternative hypothesis H1 will be that at least one distance is different from the others. This test can be performed by numerous nonparametric methods, for instance, the Kruskall-Wallis test, based on Wilcoxon rank scores (![]()
If significant relationships are found for all the markers, a global analysis is meaningful and can be done by a PCA on the entire data. An interesting feature of PCA in this multimarker context is the possibility of evaluating the relative contribution of each marker in the structure of the principal components, to see if one of the principal components, and therefore part of the typology among populations, is due to the action of a few markers only or to the whole set of markers.
All computations relative to PCA were performed with the SAS 8 package (SAS INSTITUTE 2000).
Application to data:
Now we test the efficiency of our method on real data. We present results obtained by analyzing two data sets. Data set 1 was obtained from eight French and two European cattle breeds and data set 2 was obtained from 20 distinct populations from Africa (10) and Europe (10). B. taurus, B. indicus, and one crossbred population are included in data set 2.
Data set 1, taken from MOAZAMI-GOUDARZI et al. (1997), contains data for 17 microsatellite loci (INRA K, INRA 005, INRA 011, INRA 013, INRA 016, INRA 023, INRA 025, INRA 032, INRA 035, INRA 037, INRA 040, INRA 063, INRA 064, INRA 072, ETH 131, ETH 152, and ETH 225) genotyped in 10 cattle breeds (Breton Black Pied, Charolais, Holstein, Jersey, Limousin, Maine-Anjou, Montbeliard, Normand, Parthenais, and Vosgien). Samples were collected throughout France.
In data set 2, nine microsatellite loci (INRA K, INRA 005, INRA 016, INRA 032, INRA 035, INRA 063, INRA 072, ETH 152, and ETH 225) were studied in 20 different cattle populations including the 10 populations of data set 1 and 10 African populations [Somba, Lagunaire, N'dama, Baoulé, Kuri, Sudanese Fulani zebu, Red Bororo zebu, Shuwa zebu, Madagascar zebu, and Borgou (Shorthorn x zebu crossbreds)]. West African populations were sampled in three neighboring countries: Somba cattle samples were collected in the Atacora highlands (Northwestern Benin/Northeastern Togo), which is the birthplace of this breed. Lagunaire cattle samples were collected in Benin, N'dama, Baoulé, and Borgou; Sudanese Fulani zebu samples in Burkina-Faso and Kuri; Red Bororo zebu and Shuwa zebu samples in Chad; and Madagascar zebu samples in Madagascar.
For Somba, Lagunaire, Borgou (Shorthorn x zebu crossbreds), and Sudanese Fulani zebu samples, we used protocols described in MOAZAMI-GOUDARZI et al. (1997). Data concerning N'dama, Baoulé, Kuri, Red Bororo zebu, Shuwa zebu, and Madagascar zebu populations were taken from ![]()
| RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
|---|
Fisher's exact test:
The frequency distributions of each microsatellite breed combination were significantly different as demonstrated by Fisher's exact tests (P < 10-4).
Mantel correlations:
Mantel correlations have been computed for the two data sets (Table 1 and Table 2). For data set 1, 73 out of the 136 Mantel correlations, i.e., more than one-half of the coefficients, are negative. These results are confirmed by the correlation circle (Fig 1A). All the markers are scattered in the circle and only a few markers are in the same area (for example, INRA 011, INRA 013, INRA 035, and INRA 063). In addition, high P values equal to 0.48 for the permutation test on the sum of Mantel correlations and 0.60 for the Kruskall-Wallis test were obtained. In this case, tests for the existence of compromise structure are not significant. This lack of structure can be explained by the small level of differentiation among populations or by different typologies exhibited by different markers. As demonstrated by Fisher's exact tests, significant differences among breeds are exhibited by each microsatellite. For this data set, the second explanation is more likely. Further analyses are meaningless.
|
|
|
However, in data set 2, only 5 out of the 36 Mantel correlations, i.e.,
1/7, are negative. This low proportion is a first indication of a congruent typology. These results are confirmed by the correlation circle (Fig 1B.). All the markers, except INRA 035, are clustered in the same area. Tests for the existence of a common typology are very significant. P values are equal to 0.0001 for both the Mantel correlation test and the Kruskall-Wallis test. Thus, the search for a compromise typology is meaningful and therefore we performed an overall PCA.
Principal component analysis for data set 2:
The first three PCs account for 59%, i.e., most of the variance (Fig 2A). The scatterplot is in Fig 3. The first PC accounts for 30% of the total variance and it clearly distinguishes three clusters: (1) the Kouri, Borgou, and zebu cluster; (2) the African taurine cluster; and (3) the French taurine cluster. The second PC summarizes 16% of the total variance and it clearly separates the African taurine breeds from the Madagascar zebu breed. The third PC describes 13% of the total variance and it strongly isolates the Madagascar zebu.
|
|
From a geographical point of view (Europa/Africa) and from a species point of view (B. taurus/B. indicus), the breeds included in this analysis are very well characterized. The first cluster is heterogeneous, since it includes the Borgou, a crossbred population between zebu and taurine breeds, and the Kuri, considered as a taurine population since it is humpless and has the small metacentric Y chromosome of B. taurus. This intermediate position of the Kuri breed has also been found by ![]()
![]()
![]()
Influence of individual markers:
Contributions of markers to the first three PCs are in Fig 4. Five markers contribute roughly equally to the first PC: ETH 152 (18%), ETH 225 (15%), INRA 063 (15%), INRA k (15%), and INRA 032 (14%); i.e., a total of 77%. Single PCA performed with these markers shows a good separation, particularly between the zebu cluster and the other breeds.
|
Other markers, especially INRA 035, which contributes only for 3.6%, do not exhibit any clustering between taurine and zebu breeds. INRA 035 separates Charolais and Parthenais breeds from the others. No explanation was found for this specific structure. No null alleles were observed for any of the microsatellites used in this study. The allele of INRA 035 that we have sequenced was composed of a perfect, uninterrupted, and homogeneous TG. It is also known that gene selection processes may lead to the fixation of alleles and the polymorphism in the flanking region may be wiped out (![]()
Contributions to other PCs are more disparate. In particular, the third PC, which strongly separates Madagascar zebu from other breeds, is supported mainly by two markers only: ETH 152 (27%) and INRA 032 (32%). Thus, the excentric position of the Madagascar zebu is not really reliable and should be confirmed by further analysis.
Robustness of the compromise structure:
When a compromise typology exists, the majority of markers will contribute to the construction of the first PCs. These PCs will explain a great percentage of the variance, while the other PCs, which express specific actions of markers, are of less importance. In this case, the omission of noncongruent markers will not change the compromise typology since they do not participate in its construction. This analysis is robust against the presence/absence of an incongruent marker. For instance, in data set 2, ignoring INRA 035 in the analysis will not change the general compromise typology.
When each marker leads to an independent typology, each PC of the global PCA is associated with one marker and therefore each PC will explain roughly the same variance proportion. In this case, the omission of markers will still lead to a nonmeaningful joint analysis.This situation corresponds to our data set 1. The variance proportions explained by each PC (Fig 2B) show a slow decrease of values that contrasts with the corresponding number for data set 2. Results concerning contributions of markers to the construction of PCs (Fig 5) are also different from the analysis of data set 2. PCs, even the first one, are not built by a majority of markers, but by only two of them.
|
Comparison with the neighbor-joining tree:
It is interesting to compare our approach with the neighbor-joining tree of data set 1 (![]()
Note that this problem is not specific to French cattle breeds but common for geographically close populations. Similar results have been obtained from many different sources of data relevant to genetic diversity and evolutionary history of humans (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
This lack of structure is commonly explained by the fact that too few markers were used for the analysis. However, this explanation implicitly assumes that each marker reveals the same typology among populations. In this context, differences that may be observed among typologies will be considered as typical residual errors or white noise, the influence of which will decrease with the number of markers involved. Consequently, when the number of loci increases, estimation error variance of the distances among populations will decrease (![]()
![]()
Alternatively, this lack of structure could be explained by discrepancies among the typologies exhibited by each marker. This is highlighted by the fact that one-half of the Mantel correlations among markers are negative in data set 1. The study of ![]()
![]()
Assignment:
Several studies have demonstrated the high potential of microsatellites for discrimination among individuals (![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
The contrasts between the good efficiency of assignment techniques and the weak structuralization among breeds are also found in other studies. ![]()
![]()
![]()
| CONCLUSION |
|---|
In this article, we have described a two-step process: The first step consists of performing single-marker analyses and studying relationships between them (interstructure) and the second step is building a compromise plot (intrastructure). We have focused on particular techniques, such as PCA, but other multivariate methods exist, such as correspondence analysis (![]()
![]()
We have illustrated our method with real data provided by microsatellites. These markers are substantially more complicated than assumed. Knowledge of the mutation processes at microsatellite loci is currently insufficient. Several factors have been found to be relevant to the evolution of these repeated sequences, such as asymmetry in the distribution of mutations, dependence of the mutation rate on the number of repeats, and purity of alleles or constraints on allele size (![]()
![]()
![]()
| ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
We acknowledge the assistance of the respective breeders associations in the collection of French cattle samples. We acknowledge the following persons for their help in planning and conducting the sampling missions for African samples: V. Codja (Bénin), N. T. Kouagou (Togo), I. Sidibé (Burkina-Faso), and P. Souvenir Zafindrajaona (Chad and Madagascar).
Manuscript received October 1, 2001; Accepted for publication June 12, 2002.
| LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
AGRESTI, A., 1992 A survey of exact inference for contingency tables (with discussion). Stat. Sci. 7:131-177.
AYALA, F. J., A. ESCALANTE, C. O'HUIGIN, and J. KLEIN, 1994 Molecular genetics of speciation and human origins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:6787-6794.
BARKER, J. S., D. G. BRADLEY, R. FRIES, W. G. HILL, M. NEI et al., 1993 An integrated global programme to establish the genetic relationships among the breeds of each domestic animal species. FAO Report, Rome.
BARKER, J. S., S. S. MOORE, D. J. S. HETZEL, D. EVANS, and S. G. TAN et al., 1997 Genetic diversity of Asian water buffalo (Bubalus bubalus): microsatellite variation and a comparison with protein-coding loci. Anim. Genet. 28:103-115.[Medline]
BJORNSTAD, G. and K. H. ROED, 2001 Breed demarcation and potential for breed allocation of horses assessed by microsatellite markers. Anim. Genet. 32:59-65.[Medline]
BLOTT, S. C., J. L. WILLIAMS, and C. S. HALEY, 1998 Genetic relationships among European cattle breeds. Anim. Genet. 29:273-282.[Medline]
BOSCH, E., F. CALAFELL, A. PEREZ-LEZAUN, D. COMAS, and E. MATEU et al., 1997 Population history of north Africa: evidence from classical genetic markers. Hum. Biol. 69(3):295-311.[Medline]
BOWCOCK, A. M., A. RUIZ-LINARES, J. TOMFORHDE, E. MINCH, and J. R. KIDD et al., 1994 High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites. Nature 368:455-457.[Medline]
CAÑON, J., M. L. CHECA, C. CARLEOS, J. L. VEGA-PLA, and M. VALLEJO et al., 2000 The genetic structure of Spanish Celtic horse breeds inferred from microsatellite data. Anim. Genet. 31:39-48.[Medline]
CAÑON, J., P. ALEXANDRINO, I. BESSA, C. CARLEOS, and Y. CARRETERO et al., 2001 Genetic diversity measures of local European beef cattle breeds for conservation purposes. Genet. Sel. Evol. 33:311-332.[Medline]
CARROLL, J. D., 1981 INDSCAL, pp. 371389 in Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling, edited by S. S. SCHIFFMAN, M. L. REYNOLDS and F. W. YOUNG. Academic Press, New York.
CAVALLI-SFORZA, L. L., 1997 Genes, peoples, and languages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:7719-7724.
CAVALLI-SFORZA, L. L. and A. PIAZZA, 1993 Human genomic diversity in Europe: a summary of recent research and prospects for the future. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 1:3-18.[Medline]
CAVALLI-SFORZA, L. L., P. MENOZZI and A. PIAZZA, 1994 The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
CHEN, K. H., H. CANN, T. C. CHEN, B. VAN WEST, and L. CAVALLI-SFORZA, 1985 Genetic markers of an aboriginal Taiwanese population. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 66(3):327-337.[Medline]
CONOVER, W. J., 1980 Practical Nonparametric Statistics, Ed. 2. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
CORNUET, J. M., S. PIRY, G. LUIKART, A. ESTOUP, and M. SOLIGNAC, 1999 New methods employing multilocus genotypes to select or exclude populations as origins of individuals. Genetics 153:1989-2000.
CREPALDI, P., R. NEGRINI, E. MILANESI, C. GORNI, and M. CICOGNA et al., 2001 Diversity in five goat populations of the Lombardy Alps: comparison of estimates obtained from morphometric traits and molecular markers. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 118:173-180.
CYMBRON, T., R. T. LOFTUS, M. I. MALBEIRO, and D. G. BRADLEY, 1999 Mitochondrial sequence variation suggests an African influence in Portuguese cattle. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B 266:597-603.[Medline]
EFRON, B., E. HALLORAN, and S. HOLMES, 1996 Bootstrap confidence levels for phylogenetic trees. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:7085-7090.
ESTOUP, A., and J. M. CORNUET, 1999 Microsatellite evolution: inference from population data, pp. 4965 in Microsatellites, Evolution and Applications, edited by D. B. GOLDSTEIN and C. SCHLÖTTERER. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
ESTOUP, A., L. GARNERY, M. SOLIGNAC, and J. M. CORNUET, 1995 Microsatellite variation in honey bee (Apis Melifera L.) populations: hierarchical genetic structure and test of the infinite allele and stepwise mutation models. Genetics 140:679-695.[Abstract]
FELSENSTEIN, J., 1982 How can we infer geography and history from gene frequencies? J. Theor. Biol. 96:9-20.[Medline]
FELSENSTEIN, J., 1985 Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 29:783-791.
FOULLEY, J. L. and W. G. HILL, 1999 On the precision of estimation of genetic distance. Genet. Sel. Evol. 31:457-464.
GOLDSTEIN, D. B., G. W. ROEMER, D. A. SMITH, D. E. REICH, and A. BERGMAN et al., 1999 The use of microsatellite variation to infer population structure and demographic history in a natural model system. Genetics 151:797-801.
GROSCLAUDE, F., R. Y. AUPETIT, J. LEFEBVRE, and J. C. MÉRIAUX, 1990 Essai d'analyse des relations génétiques entre les races bovines françaises à l'aide du polymorphisme biochimique. Genet. Sel. Evol. 22:317-338.
HANSLIK, S., B. HARR, G. BREM, and C. SCHLOTERRER, 2000 Microsatellite analysis reveals substantial genetic differentiation between contemporary new world and old world Holstein Friesan populations. Anim. Genet. 31:31-38.[Medline]
HILL, M. O., 1974 Correspondence analysis: a neglected multivariate technique. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C 23:340-354.
JORDE, L., A. R. ROGERS, M. BAMSHAD, W. S. WATKINS, and P. KRAKOWIAK et al., 1997 Microsatellite diversity and the demographic history of modern humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94:3100-3103.
KOSKINEN, M. T. and P. BREDBACKA, 2000 Assessment of the population structure of five Finnish dog breeds with microsatellites. Anim. Genet. 31:310-317.[Medline]
LAVAL, G., N. IANUCCELLI, C. LEGAULT, D. MILAN, and M. A. M. GROENEN et al., 2000 Genetic diversity of eleven European pig breeds. Genet. Sel. Evol. 32:187-203.[Medline]
LI, S., K. P. PEARL, and H. DOSS, 2000 Phylogenetic tree construction using Markov chain Monte Carlo. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 95:493-508.
MACHUGH, D. E., M. D. SHRIVER, R. T. LOFTUS, P. CUNNINGHAM, and D. G. BRADLEY, 1997 Microsatellite DNA variation and the evolution, domestication and phylogeography of taurine and zebu cattle (Bos taurus and Bos indicus). Genetics 146:1071-1086.[Abstract]
MAHÉ, M. F., G. MIRANDA, R. QUEVAL, A. BADO, and P. SOUVENIR ZAFINDRAJAONA et al., 1999 Genetic polymorphism of milk proteins in African Bos taurus and Bos indicus populations. Characterization of variants
s1-Cn H and
-Cn J. Genet. Sel. Evol. 31:239-253.
MANLY, B. F. J., 1997 Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. Chapman & Hall, London.
MANTEL, N., 1967 The detection of disease clustering and generalized regression approach. Cancer Res. 27:209-220.[Medline]
MARDIA, K. V., J. T. KENT and J. M. BIBBY, 1979 Multivariate Analysis, pp. 213246. Academic Press, New York.
MOAZAMI-GOUDARZI, K., D. LALOË, J. P. FURET, and F. GROSCLAUDE, 1997 Analysis of genetic relationships between 10 cattle breeds with 17 microsatellites. Anim. Genet. 28:338-345.[Medline]
MOAZAMI-GOUDARZI, K., S. PIRY, D. LALOË, M. SOLIGNAC and J. M. CORNUET, 1998 Breed assignment in cattle using microsatellites. Twenty-sixth International Conference on Animal Genetics, Auckland, New Zealand.
MORRISON, D. F., 1976 Multivariate Statistical Methods, Ed. 2. Wiley, New York.
PRITCHARD, J. K., M. STEPHENS, and P. DONNELLY, 2000 Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945-959.
RUANE, J., 1999 A critical review of the value of genetic distance studies in conservation of animal genetic resources. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 116:317-323.
SAHA, N. and J. S. TAY, 1992 Origin of the Koreans: a population genetic study. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 88:27-36.[Medline]
SAHA, N., J. W. MAK, J. S. TAY, Y. LIU, and J. A. TAN et al., 1995 Population genetic study among the Orange Asli (Semai Senoi) of Malaysia: Malayan aborigines. Hum. Biol. 67(1):37-57.[Medline]
SAITBEKOVA, N., C. GAILLARD, G. OBEXER-RUFF, and G. DOLF, 1999 Genetic diversity in Swiss goat breeds based on microsatellite analysis. Anim. Genet. 30:36-41.[Medline]
SAS INSTITUTE, 2000 SAS/STAT, User's Guide, Version 8. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
SCHLÖTTERER, C., and T. WIEHE, 1999 Microsatellite, a neutral marker to infer selective sweeps, pp. 238248 in Microsatellites, Evolution and Applications, edited by D. B. GOLDSTEIN and C. SCHLÖTTERER. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
SOUVENIR ZAFINDRAJAONA, P., V. ZEUH, K. MOAZAMI-GOUDARZI, D. LALOË, and D. BOURZAT et al., 1999 Study on the phylogenetic status of Lake Chad Kuri cattle using molecular markers. Revue Elev. Méd. Vét. Pays Trop. 52(2):155-162.
TAKEZAKI, N. and M. NEI, 1996 Genetic distances and reconstruction of phylogenetic trees from microsatellite DNA. Genetics 144:389-399.[Abstract]
UNDERHILL, P. A., P. SHEN, A. A. LIN, L. JIN, and G. PASSARINO et al., 2000 Y chromosome sequence variation and the history of human populations. Nat. Genet. 26:358-361.[Medline]
VILÀ, C., J. A. LEONARD, A. GÖTHERSTRÖM, S. MARKLUND, and K. SANDBERG et al., 2001 Widespread origins of domestic horse lineages. Science 291:474-477.
WIMMERS, K., S. PONSUKSILI, T. HARDGE, A. VALLE-ZARATE, and P. K. MARTHUR et al., 2000 Genetic distinctness of African, Asian and South American local chickens. Anim. Genet. 31:159-165.[Medline]
YANG, L., S. H. ZHAO, K. LI, Z. Z. PENG, and G. W. MONTGOMERY, 1999 Determination of genetic relationships among five indigenous Chinese goat breeds with six microsatellite markers. Anim. Genet. 30:452-455.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
J. P. Liron, P. Peral-Garcia, and G. Giovambattista Genetic Characterization of Argentine and Bolivian Creole Cattle Breeds Assessed through Microsatellites J. Hered., July 1, 2006; 97(4): 331 - 339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
- THIS ARTICLE
-
Abstract
- Full Text (PDF)
- Alert me when this article is cited
- Alert me if a correction is posted
- SERVICES
- Similar articles in this journal
- Similar articles in PubMed
- Alert me to new issues of the journal
- Download to citation manager
- Reprints & Permissions
- CITING ARTICLES
- Citing Articles via HighWire
- Citing Articles via Google Scholar
- GOOGLE SCHOLAR
- Articles by Moazami-Goudarzi, K.
- Articles by Laloë, D.
- Search for Related Content
- PUBMED
- PubMed Citation
- Articles by Moazami-Goudarzi, K.
- Articles by Laloë, D.





