Detection and evaluation of parameters influencing the identification of heterozygous-enriched regions in Holstein cattle based on SNP chip or whole-genome sequence data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A heterozygous-enriched region (HER) is a genomic region with high variability generated by factors such as balancing selection, introgression, and admixture processes. In this study, we evaluated the genomic background of HERs and the impact of different parameters (i.e., minimum number of SNPs in a HER, maximum distance between two consecutive SNPs, minimum length of a HER, maximum number of homozygous allowed in a HER) and scenarios [i.e., different SNP panel densities and whole-genome sequence (WGS)] on the detection of HERs. We also compared HERs characterized in Holstein cattle with those identified in Angus, Jersey, and Norwegian Red cattle using WGS data. RESULTS: The parameters used for the identification of HERs significantly impact their detection. The maximum distance between two consecutive SNPs did not impact HERs detection as the same average of HERs (269.31 ± 787.00) was observed across scenarios. However, the minimum number of markers, maximum homozygous markers allowed inside a HER, and the minimum length size impacted HERs detection. For the minimum length size, the 10 Kb scenario showed the highest average number of HERs (1,364.69 ± 1,483.64). The number of HERs decreased as the minimum number of markers increased (621.31 ± 1,271.83 to 6.08 ± 21.94), and an opposite pattern was observed for the maximum homozygous markers allowed inside a HER (54.47 ± 195.51 to 494.89 ± 1,169.35). Forty-five HER islands located in 23 chromosomes with high Tajima's D values and differential among the observed and estimated heterozygosity were detected in all evaluated scenarios, indicating their ability to potentially detect regions under balancing selection. In total, 3,440 markers and 28 genes previously related to fertility (e.g., TP63, ZSCAN23, NEK5, ARHGAP44), immunity (e.g., TP63, IGC, ARHGAP44), residual feed intake (e.g., MAYO9A), stress sensitivity (e.g., SERPINA6), and milk fat percentage (e.g., NOL4) were identified. When comparing HER islands among breeds, there were substantial overlaps between Holstein with Angus (95.3%), Jersey (94.3%), and Norwegian Red cattle (97.1%), indicating conserved HER across taurine breeds. CONCLUSIONS: The detection of HERs varied according to the parameters used, but some HERs were consistently identified across all scenarios. Heterozygous genotypes observed across generations and breeds appear to be conserved in HERs. The results presented could serve as a guide for defining HERs detection parameters and further investigating their biological roles in future studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".