Genome‐wide population structure and admixture analysis reveals weak differentiation among Ugandan goat breeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Uganda has a large population of goats, predominantly from indigenous breeds reared in diverse production systems, whose existence is threatened by crossbreeding with exotic Boer goats. Knowledge about the genetic characteristics and relationships among these Ugandan goat breeds and the potential admixture with Boer goats is still limited. Using a medium‐density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panel, we assessed the genetic diversity, population structure and admixture in six goat breeds in Uganda: Boer, Karamojong, Kigezi, Mubende, Small East African and Sebei. All the animals had genotypes for about 46 105 SNPs after quality control. We found high proportions of polymorphic SNPs ranging from 0.885 (Kigezi) to 0.928 (Sebei). The overall mean observed (HO) and expected (HE) heterozygosity across breeds was 0.355 ± 0.147 and 0.384 ± 0.143 respectively. Principal components, genetic distances and admixture analyses revealed weak population sub‐structuring among the breeds. Principal components separated Kigezi and weakly Small East African from other indigenous goats. Sebei and Karamojong were tightly entangled together, whereas Mubende occupied a more central position with high admixture from all other local breeds. The Boer breed showed a unique cluster from the Ugandan indigenous goat breeds. The results reflect common ancestry but also some level of geographical differentiation. admixture and f4 statistics revealed gene flow from Boer and varying levels of genetic admixture among the breeds. Generally, moderate to high levels of genetic variability were observed. Our findings provide useful insights into maintaining genetic diversity and designing appropriate breeding programs to exploit within‐breed diversity and heterozygote advantage in crossbreeding schemes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".