1000 Bull Genomes Project to Map Simple and Complex Genetic Traits in Cattle: Applications and Outcomes

Literature Cited

1. 1. 

   Bov. Genome Seq. Anal. Consort. Elsik CG, Tellam RL, Worley KC, Gibbs RA et al. 2009. The genome sequence of taurine cattle: a window to ruminant biology and evolution. Science 324:5926522–28
   [Google Scholar]
2. 2. 

   Van Tassell CP, Smith TP, Matukumalli LK, Taylor JF, Schnabel RD et al. 2008. SNP discovery and allele frequency estimation by deep sequencing of reduced representation libraries. Nat. Methods 5:3247–52
   [Google Scholar]
3. 3. 

   Bov. HapMap Consort. Gibbs RA, Taylor JF, Van Tassell CP, Barendse W et al. 2009. Genome-wide survey of SNP variation uncovers the genetic structure of cattle breeds. Science 324:5926528–32
   [Google Scholar]
4. 4. 

   Larkin DM, Daetwyler HD, Hernandez AG, Wright CL, Hetrick LA et al. 2012. Whole-genome resequencing of two elite sires for the detection of haplotypes under selection in dairy cattle. PNAS 109:207693–98
   [Google Scholar]
5. 5. 

   Chen L, Chamberlain AJ, Reich CM, Daetwyler HD, Hayes BJ 2017. Detection and validation of structural variations in bovine whole-genome sequence data. Genet. Sel. Evol. 49:13
   [Google Scholar]
6. 6. 

   Boitard S, Rodríguez W, Jay F, Mona S, Austerlitz F 2016. Inferring population size history from large samples of genome-wide molecular data—an approximate Bayesian computation approach. PLOS Genet 12:3e1005877
   [Google Scholar]
7. 7. 

   Boitard S, Boussaha M, Capitan A, Rocha D, Servin B 2016. Uncovering adaptation from sequence data: lessons from genome resequencing of four cattle breeds. Genetics 203:1433–50
   [Google Scholar]
8. 8. 

   Bourneuf E, Otz P, Pausch H, Jagannathan V, Michot P et al. 2017. Rapid discovery of de novo deleterious mutations in cattle enhances the value of livestock as model species. Sci. Rep. 7:111466
   [Google Scholar]
9. 9. 

   VanRaden PM, Olson KM, Null DJ, Hutchison JL 2011. Harmful recessive effects on fertility detected by absence of homozygous haplotypes. J. Dairy Sci. 94:126153–61
   [Google Scholar]
10. 10. 

    Adams HA, Sonstegard TS, VanRaden PM, Null DJ, Van Tassell CP et al. 2016. Identification of a nonsense mutation in APAF1 that is likely causal for a decrease in reproductive efficiency in Holstein dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 99:86693–701
    [Google Scholar]
11. 11. 

    Daetwyler HD, Capitan A, Pausch H, Stothard P, van Binsbergen R et al. 2014. Whole-genome sequencing of 234 bulls facilitates mapping of monogenic and complex traits in cattle. Nat. Genet. 46:8858–65
    [Google Scholar]
12. 12. 

    Kunz E, Rothammer S, Pausch H, Schwarzenbacher H, Seefried FR et al. 2016. Confirmation of a non-synonymous SNP in PNPLA8 as a candidate causal mutation for Weaver syndrome in Brown Swiss cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 48:21
    [Google Scholar]
13. 13. 

    Michot P, Chahory S, Marete A, Grohs C, Dagios D et al. 2016. A reverse genetic approach identifies an ancestral frameshift mutation in RP1 causing recessive progressive retinal degeneration in European cattle breeds. Genet. Sel. Evol. 48:156
    [Google Scholar]
14. 14. 

    Rothammer S, Kunz E, Seichter D, Krebs S, Wassertheurer M et al. 2017. Detection of two non-synonymous SNPs in SLC45A2 on BTA20 as candidate causal mutations for oculocutaneous albinism in Braunvieh cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 49:173
    [Google Scholar]
15. 15. 

    Agerholm JS, Menzi F, McEvoy FJ, Jagannathan V, Drögemüller C 2016. Lethal chondrodysplasia in a family of Holstein cattle is associated with a de novo splice site variant of COL2A1. BMC Vet. Res 12:100
    [Google Scholar]
16. 16. 

    Rothammer S, Kunz E, Krebs S, Bitzer F, Hauser A et al. 2018. Remapping of the belted phenotype in cattle on BTA3 identifies a multiplication event as the candidate causal mutation. Genet. Sel. Evol. 50:136
    [Google Scholar]
17. 17. 

    Murgiano L, Jagannathan V, Piffer C, Diez-Prieto I, Bolcato M et al. 2016. A frameshift mutation in MOCOS is associated with familial renal syndrome (xanthinuria) in Tyrolean Grey cattle. BMC Vet. Res. 12:1276
    [Google Scholar]
18. 18. 

    Fritz S, Hoze C, Rebours E, Barbat A, Bizard M et al. 2018. An initiator codon mutation in SDE2 causes recessive embryonic lethality in Holstein cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 101:76220–31
    [Google Scholar]
19. 19. 

    Michot P, Fritz S, Barbat A, Boussaha M, Deloche MC et al. 2017. A missense mutation in PFAS (phosphoribosylformylglycinamidine synthase) is likely causal for embryonic lethality associated with the MH1 haplotype in Montbéliarde dairy cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2100:108176–87
    [Google Scholar]
20. 20. 

    Boichard D, Boussaha M, Capitan A, Rocha D, Hoze C et al. 2018. Experience from large scale use of the EuroGenomics custom SNP chip in cattle. Proc. World Congr. Genet. Appl. Livest. Prod. 4:675
    [Google Scholar]
21. 21. 

    MacLeod IM, Bowman PJ, Vander Jagt CJ, Haile-Mariam M, Kemper KE et al. 2016. Exploiting biological priors and sequence variants enhances QTL discovery and genomic prediction of complex traits. BMC Genom 17:144
    [Google Scholar]
22. 22. 

    Goddard ME, Kemper KE, MacLeod IM, Chamberlain AJ, Hayes BJ 2016. Genetics of complex traits: prediction of phenotype, identification of causal polymorphisms and genetic architecture. Proc. Biol. Sci. B 283:183520160569
    [Google Scholar]
23. 23. 

    Grisart B, Coppieters W, Farnir F, Karim L, Ford C et al. 2002. Positional candidate cloning of a QTL in dairy cattle: identification of a missense mutation in the bovine DGAT1 gene with major effect on milk yield and composition. Genome Res 12:2222–31
    [Google Scholar]
24. 24. 

    Blott S, Kim JJ, Moisio S, Schmidt-Küntzel A, Cornet A et al. 2003. Molecular dissection of a quantitative trait locus: A phenylalanine-to-tyrosine substitution in the transmembrane domain of the bovine growth hormone receptor is associated with a major effect on milk yield and composition. Genetics 163:1253–66
    [Google Scholar]
25. 25. 

    Cohen-Zinder M, Seroussi E, Larkin DM, Loor JJ, Everts-van der Wind A et al. 2005. Identification of a missense mutation in the bovine ABCG2 gene with a major effect on the QTL on chromosome 6 affecting milk yield and composition in Holstein cattle. Genome Res 15:7936–44
    [Google Scholar]
26. 26. 

    Pausch H, Emmerling R, Gredler-Grandl B, Fries R, Daetwyler HD, Goddard ME 2017. Meta-analysis of sequence-based association studies across three cattle breeds reveals 25 QTL for fat and protein percentages in milk at nucleotide resolution. BMC Genom 18:1853
    [Google Scholar]
27. 27. 

    Frischknecht M, Pausch H, Bapst B, Signer-Hasler H, Flury C et al. 2017. Highly accurate sequence imputation enables precise QTL mapping in Brown Swiss cattle. BMC Genom 18:1999
    [Google Scholar]
28. 28. 

    Xiang R, Hayes BJ, Vander Jagt CJ, MacLeod IM, Khansefid M et al. 2018. Genome variants associated with RNA splicing variations in bovine are extensively shared between tissues. BMC Genom 19:1521
    [Google Scholar]
29. 29. 

    Kemper KE, Littlejohn MD, Lopdell T, Hayes BJ, Bennett LE et al. 2016. Leveraging genetically simple traits to identify small-effect variants for complex phenotypes. BMC Genom 17:1858
    [Google Scholar]
30. 30. 

    Sanchez MP, Govignon-Gion A, Croiseau P, Fritz S, Hozé C et al. 2017. Within-breed and multi-breed GWAS on imputed whole-genome sequence variants reveal candidate mutations affecting milk protein composition in dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 49:168
    [Google Scholar]
31. 31. 

    Bouwman AC, Daetwyler HD, Chamberlain AJ, Ponce CH, Sargolzaei M et al. 2018. Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies for cattle stature identifies common genes that regulate body size in mammals. Nat. Genet. 50:3362–67
    [Google Scholar]
32. 32. 

    Zhu Z, Zhang F, Hu H, Bakshi A, Robinson MR et al. 2016. Integration of summary data from GWAS and eQTL studies predicts complex trait gene targets. Nat. Genet. 48:5481–87
    [Google Scholar]
33. 33. 

    Giuffra E, Tuggle CK, FAANG Consort 2019. Functional Annotation of Animal Genomes (FAANG): current achievements and roadmap. Annu. Rev. Anim. Biosci. 7:65–88
    [Google Scholar]
34. 34. 

    Andersson L, Archibald AL, Bottema CD, Brauning R, Burgess SC et al. 2015. FAANG Consortium. Coordinated international action to accelerate genome-to-phenome with FAANG, the Functional Annotation of Animal Genomes project. Genome Biol 16:57
    [Google Scholar]
35. 35. 

    van Binsbergen R, Calus MP, Bink MC, van Eeuwijk FA, Schrooten C, Veerkamp RF 2015. Genomic prediction using imputed whole-genome sequence data in Holstein Friesian cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 47:71
    [Google Scholar]
36. 36. 

    Frischknecht M, Meuwissen THE, Bapst B, Seefried FR, Flury C et al. 2018. Short communication: genomic prediction using imputed whole-genome sequence variants in Brown Swiss Cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 101:21292–96
    [Google Scholar]
37. 37. 

    Brøndum RF, Su G, Janss L, Sahana G, Guldbrandtsen B et al. 2015. Quantitative trait loci markers derived from whole genome sequence data increases the reliability of genomic prediction. J. Dairy Sci. 98:64107–16
    [Google Scholar]
38. 38. 

    VanRaden PM, Tooker ME, O'Connell JR, Cole JB, Bickhart DM 2017. Selecting sequence variants to improve genomic predictions for dairy cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 49:132
    [Google Scholar]
39. 39. 

    Veerkamp RF, Bouwman AC, Schrooten C, Calus MP 2016. Genomic prediction using preselected DNA variants from a GWAS with whole-genome sequence data in Holstein-Friesian cattle. Genet. Sel. Evol. 48:195
    [Google Scholar]
40. 40. 

    Raymond B, Bouwman AC, Schrooten C, Houwing-Duistermaat J, Veerkamp RF 2018. Utility of whole-genome sequence data for across-breed genomic prediction. Genet. Sel. Evol. 50:27
    [Google Scholar]
41. 41. 

    Calus MP, Bouwman AC, Schrooten C, Veerkamp RF 2016. Efficient genomic prediction based on whole-genome sequence data using split-and-merge Bayesian variable selection. Genet. Sel. Evol. 48:149
    [Google Scholar]
42. 42. 

    Wang T, Chen YP, Bowman PJ, Goddard ME, Hayes BJ 2016. A hybrid expectation maximisation and MCMC sampling algorithm to implement Bayesian mixture model based genomic prediction and QTL mapping. BMC Genom 17:1744
    [Google Scholar]
43. 43. 

    van den Berg I, Bowman PJ, MacLeod IM, Hayes BJ, Wang T et al. 2017. Multi-breed genomic prediction using Bayes R with sequence data and dropping variants with a small effect. Genet. Sel. Evol. 49:170
    [Google Scholar]
44. 44. 

    Zhang C, Kemp RA, Stothard P, Wang Z, Boddicker N et al. 2018. Genomic evaluation of feed efficiency component traits in Duroc pigs using 80K, 650K and whole-genome sequence variants. Genet. Sel. Evol. 50:14
    [Google Scholar]
45. 45. 

    Duchemin SI, Bovenhuis H, Megens H-J, Van Arendonk JAM, Visker MHPW 2017. Fine-mapping of BTA17 using imputed sequences for associations with de novo synthesized fatty acids in bovine milk. J. Dairy Sci. 100:119125–35
    [Google Scholar]
46. 46. 

    Frischknecht M, Bapst B, Seefried FR, Signer-Hasler H, Garrick D et al. 2017. Genome-wide association studies of fertility and calving traits in Brown Swiss cattle using imputed whole-genome sequences. BMC Genom 18:1910
    [Google Scholar]
47. 47. 

    Raven LA, Cocks BG, Kemper KE, Chamberlain AJ, Vander Jagt CJ et al. 2016. Targeted imputation of sequence variants and gene expression profiling identifies twelve candidate genes associated with lactation volume, composition and calving interval in dairy cattle. Mamm. Genome 27:1–281–97
    [Google Scholar]
48. 48. 

    Moore SG, Pryce JE, Hayes BJ, Chamberlain AJ, Kemper KE et al. 2016. Differentially expressed genes in endometrium and corpus luteum of Holstein cows selected for high and low fertility are enriched for sequence variants associated with fertility. Biol. Reprod. 94:119
    [Google Scholar]
49. 49. 

    Chamberlain AJ, Vander Jagt CJ, Hayes BJ, Khansefid M, Marett LC et al. 2015. Extensive variation between tissues in allele specific expression in an outbred mammal. BMC Genom 16:993
    [Google Scholar]