Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 May 19;18(5):e0277156. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277156

Genetic variation in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene associated with estimated breeding values of milk production traits and clinical mastitis in dairy cattle

Destaw Worku 1,¤,*, Gopal Gowane 1, Archana Verma 1
Editor: Julio Cesar de Souza2
PMCID: PMC10198522  PMID: 37205663

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to identify genetic variants in the promoter and 5’UTR regions of bovine leucine amino peptidase three (LAP3) gene and analysed their associations with estimated breeding values (EBVs) of milk production traits and clinical mastitis in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle. Eleven SNPs were identified within the region under study of the LAP3 gene, including seven promoter variants (rs717156555: C>G, rs720373055: T>C, rs715189731: A>G, rs516876447: A>G, rs461857269: C>T, rs136548163: C>T, and rs720349928: G>A) and four 5’UTR variants (rs717884982: C>T, rs722359733: C>T, rs481631804: C>T and rs462932574: T>G). Out of them, 10 SNPs variants were found in both Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle, with one SNP variant (rs481631804: C>T) being unique to Karan Fries cattle. Seven of these identified SNPs were chosen for association analyses. Individual SNP based association analysis revealed that two SNPs (rs720373055: T>C and rs720349928: G>A) were significantly associated with EBVs of lactation milk yield (LMY), 305-day milk yield (305dMY), and one significant association of SNP rs722359733: C>T with lactation length (LL) was observed. Haplotype based association analysis indicated that diplotypes are significantly associated with EBVs of LMY, 305dMY, and LL, individuals with H1H3 (CTACGCT/GCGTACG) being linked to higher lactation performance than other diplotypes. Further logistic regression analysis revealed that, animals with diplotype H1H3 was less susceptible to the incidence of clinical mastitis than other cows, as the odds ratio for the non-incidence of clinical mastitis was found to be low. Altogether, variations in the LAP3 gene promoter could be used as a genetic marker, most notably diplotype H1H3, may greatly benefit the simultaneous improvement of mastitis resistance and milk yield traits in dairy cattle. Moreover, bioinformatics analysis predicted that the SNPs rs720373055: T>C, rs715189731:A>G and rs720349928: G>A is located in the core promoter region and in TFBs, play key role in regulation of studied phenotypes.

Introduction

Within India’s economy, the dairy industry is regarded as one of the most important and dynamic agri-food sectors, and it serves as the primary source of income for dairy farmers. As a result, genetic improvement of milk production traits remains the primary economic activity for profitable dairy business. Sahiwal is one of the most important milch breeds of indigenous cattle famous for higher milk production, remarkable power of endurance for hot climate of subtropics, comparatively resistant to diseases and low maintenance cost [1]. Although the indigenous cows are less prone to mastitis, rigorous selection for more milk production has increased cow’s susceptibility to mastitis [2, 3]. Whereas, Karan Fries is a synthetic breed evolved by crossing Holstein Friesian (75%) and Tharparkar cattle. It has good production potential but is more prone to mastitis as compared to their Indian counterpart, while the prevalence of clinical mastitis in crossbred cows ranges between 5 and 37% [4] and it is associated with many animal and environmental level factors [5]. For many years, general mastitis control strategies have met with little success. As a result, mastitis continues to remain the most challenging cattle disease with great economic implications through reduced quantity, quality, and waste of milk unfit for consumption, resulting in massive antibiotic use and premature culling, veterinary service, and labour cost [6, 7]. Due to the important economic value of milk production traits, a deeper understanding of genes involved in resistance to mastitis will take a step closer to the aim of developing cattle breeds, less susceptible to mastitis, whilst maintaining desired milk production traits. In this regard, marker-assisted selection (MAS) can be used to select possible genotypes associated with the most desirable phenotypes, which could enhance and expedite the efforts for genetic improvement.

Advances in the identification of loci and chromosomal regions that control economically important traits have opened opportunities for improving milk production traits and mastitis resistance in dairy cattle breeds. The candidate gene approach, which selects useful markers for mastitis resistance while maintaining production traits, is of utmost importance in dairy industry. Thus, studying the genetic variability of candidate genes and their associations with milk yield traits and mastitis is necessary [8, 9].

The bovine leucine amino peptidase three (LAP3) gene, which spans a 25-kilobase genomic segment and encodes a 519 amino-acid mature protein, is found on Bos taurus autosome 6 (BTA6). The LAP3 also known as PEPS gene is involved in the metabolism of many peptides, including hormone control, protein maturation, protein inactivation and protein digestion in the terminal stage [10, 11]. In mammals, the LAP3 gene is involved in the processing of bioactive peptides (oxytocin, vasopressin, and enkephalins) as well as vesicle trafficking to the plasma membrane for MHCI antigen presentation [12, 13]. So far, [14] showed that the LAP3 gene for the BTA6 QTL positional candidates is differentially expressed in bovine mammary tissue at different stages of lactation cycle (pregnancy, lactation, and involution). They noticed, a 2.2-fold increase in expression in lactating mammary gland tissues compared to tissue from late pregnancy. A QTL with a strong influence on milk production traits was also identified, and mapped to a 420-kb gap on bovine chromosome 6 between the genes ABCG2 and LAP3 [1517]. As a result, Olsen and colleagues [18] identified a QTL in a 420-kb region of the genome that contains six milk production candidate genes, including the LAP3 gene, on bovine chromosome 6. On the other hand, it has been shown that some LAP3 gene variants are associated with economic traits in dairy cattle [1922]. Furthermore, Ju et al. [23] discovered two genetic polymorphisms in the bovine PEPS gene promoter region (g.-534T>C and g.-2545G>A), and their combined haplotypes were linked to milk fat percentage and somatic cell score in Chinese Holstein cattle. Based on the evidence presented above, it is believed that the LAP3 gene could be a promising functional gene for milk production traits in dairy cattle. Nonetheless, identifying single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) affecting milk production traits in tropical cattle is of paramount importance to accelerate the rate of genetic change in the developing world’s dairy industry [24]. However, studies on the relationship between polymorphisms in bovine LAP3 gene with milk production traits and incidence of clinical mastitis in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle are still lacking. Therefore, the current study sought to identify SNPs located in the promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene and their associations with estimated breeding values (EBVs) of milk production traits and clinical mastitis in Sahiwal and Karan-Fries cattle.

Materials and methods

Ethics statement

All the experimental animals were approved by the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee (IAEC) of ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, India, on 22-07-2020 under approval number 46-IAEC-2021. Moreover, the experiments were conducted in accordance with the guidelines of Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experimentation in Animals (CPCSEA), Government of India (1705/GO/ac/13/CPCSEA).

Animals, blood samples and phenotypic data

Blood samples were obtained from 220 cows, 110 Sahiwal and 110 Karan Fries, that were reared at ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute (ICAR-NDRI), Karnal, India, under similar managemental conditions. The traits used for the study were production traits such as total lactation milk yield (LMY), 305-day milk yield (305dMY), 305-day fat yield (305dFY), 305-day solid not fat yield (305dSNFY), lactation length (LL) and clinical mastitis (CM). Based on records of 935 Sahiwal cows (1979–2019) and 1426 Karan Fries cows (1988–2019) with all parities maintained in ICAR-NDRI, India, estimated breeding values (EBVs) for milk production traits were estimated by repeatability animal model using BLUPF90 software [25]. As a result, for the association analysis of SNPs in the LAP3 gene with milk production traits, the EBVs of genotyped 110 Sahiwal and 110 Karan Fries animals were used as responding variables. Furthermore, data on the incidence of CM was collected from the Animal Health Complex treatment register, and animals were classified as healthy or mastitis-affected based on the frequency of clinical mastitis.

DNA extraction and PCR amplification

Genomic DNAs were extracted from whole blood samples by phenol-chloroform extraction method following standard procedures [26]. The quantity and quality of extracted DNAs were measured by NANODROP 2000 Spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, DE, USA). Samples showing an optical density (OD) ratio (260 nm/280 nm) between 1.7 and 1.9 were used for further analysis. The stock DNA was further diluted to the final concentration of 50 ng/μL in nuclease-free water and stored at 4°C. Primer used to amplify the target promoter region was designed based on nucleotide sequence of the Bos- taurus LAP3 gene (ENSBTAG00000005989) using Primer3 Plus online software [27]. Primers LAP3- F (5’–GCTACGTGCAACCTTTCTCC– 3’) and LAP3- R (5’–CTCACCTTCGTCATGTCTGC– 3’) were used to amplify 537 bp (430 bp of 5’ flanking region to 107 bp of exon 1) of the bovine LAP3 gene. The PCR reactions were carried out in a total volume of 25 μl on a Thermo- Cycler (Bio- Rad T100) containing 2.0 μl genomic DNA (50 ng /μl), 0.5 μl (10 pM of each primer), 13.0 μl of 2X PCR Master Mix and 9.0 μl of nuclease free water. The PCR reaction cycling protocol encompassed initial denaturation at 95°C for 3 min, followed by 34 cycles of 94°C for 30 s, specific annealing temperature (59.5°C) for 30 s, 40 s at 72°C, and a final extension step at 72°C for 8 minutes. The PCR products were evaluated by 1.5% agarose gel electrophoresis by staining with ethidium bromide.

SNP identification and genotyping

The representative samples of purified PCR products for both breeds were sequenced using the automated ABI3730XL DNA sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Foster city, CA, USA) to search for polymorphism. Sequenced data were analyzed using CodonCode Aligner [28], to discover, analyze the sequences and to find the mutation sites and its location. Multiple sequence alignments were performed with MEGA11 [29] software. After discovery of the SNP sites, all samples (110 Sahiwal and 110 Karan Fries = 220) were further genotyped using ABI3730XL DNA sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Foster city, CA, USA).

Statistical analysis

The population genetics statistical analysis: genotypic and allelic frequencies, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium test (χ2), polymorphism information content (PIC), gene heterozygosity (Ho and He) and effective allele numbers (ne) calculated using PopGen2 software [30]. Haplotype analysis among the identified SNPs of LAP3 gene was performed using the SNPstat online server [31].

Association analysis between each individual SNPs genotypes and haplotype combinations and the EBVs of milk production traits of 220 cows were carried out using a general linear model procedure of SAS Version 9.2 software [32] with the following linear model.

Yijk=μ+Bi+Gj+eijk

where Yijk = Estimated breeding value of milk production traits, μ is overall mean, Bi is the effect of ith breed, Gj is the fixed effect corresponding to the jth genotype or haplotype combination of individual and eijk is the random error. EBVs were used as a phenotype to test the association of promoter variants of LAP3 gene with milk production traits. P values < 0.05 were regarded as significant. Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests were conducted to compare significant differences between groups. Furthermore, the additive (a), dominant (d), and substitution (α) effects were calculated using the following formulas: a = AABB2; d = ABAA+BB2; α = a+d (q-p) [33], where AA, BB, and AB are the least square means of EBVs for milk production traits in the respective genotypes, and p and q were the frequencies of allele A and B, respectively.

Haplotype based association with mastitis affected and non-affected animals were analyzed using the Chi-square (χ2) procedure of SAS Version 9.2 software [32]. Further logistic regression model was applied to analyze the fixed effect of breed, period of calving, season of calving and diplotypes or haplotype combination on the incidence of clinical mastitis by the maximum likelihood method of the Logistic procedure of SAS Version 9.2 software. The probability is modelled to the event of the incidence of clinical mastitis.

Prediction of transcription factor binding sites (TFBs) and search for CpG islands

The Genomatix software suite [34] was used to predict whether the SNPs in the promoter region of LAP3 changed the TFBSs or not. To search for CpG, the stringent search criteria, Takai and Jones algorithm: GC content ≥ 50%, Observed CpG/Expected CpG ratio ≥ 0.65, and length > 200 bp was used [35]. For this purpose, the EMBOSS Cpgplot available at web link https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/seqstats/emboss_cpgplot/) was used [36].

Results and discussion

Identification of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)

Through sequencing (Fig 1), a total of 11 SNPs were identified in the promoter (rs717156555: C>G, rs720373055: T>C, rs715189731: A>G, rs516876447: A>G, rs461857269: C>T, rs136548163: C>T and rs720349928: G>A) and 5’UTR (rs717884982: C>T, rs722359733: C>T, rs481631804:C>T and rs462932574: T>G) of bovine LAP3 gene (Table 1). Of them, 10 SNPs variants were found in both Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle, with 1 SNP variant (rs481631804: C>T) being unique to Karan Fries cattle. To the best of our knowledge, the eleven unique SNPs discovered in this study have never been reported in dairy cattle before. In Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle populations, all of the detected SNPs showed polymorphism, however the SNP rs136548163: C>T tended to have a monomorphic pattern in Sahiwal cattle. It is worth nothing that the SNPs rs720373055: T>C and rs715189731: A>G were always linked in the study population in the following manner: (1) Animals homozygous at position rs720373055: T>C were always homozygous at position rs715189731: A>G, and heterozygotes were heterozygous at both sites; (2) the individuals had either T at position rs720373055: T>C, and A at rs715189731: A>G, or C at position rs720373055: T>C and G at rs715189731: A>G. As a result, it might be concluded that the two SNPs rs720373055: T>C and rs715189731: A>G were entirely linked and inherited as a unit in the studied populations tested. Among eleven SNPs being detected, seven of them, which are present in both the breeds with frequency more than 5% were chosen for association analysis. Details of the identified SNPs including, region and location in LAP3 gene are illustrated in Table 1.

Fig 1. Schematic representation of SNPs detected in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene.

Fig 1

The arrow indicates the position of mutation sites. The number indicates the single nucleotide polymorphisms identifier (SNP ID).

Table 1. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) detected by sequencing in the LAP3 gene (ARS–UCD1.2).

No. SNP ID Region in the gene Location (BTA:bp) Nucleotide substitution
1 rs717156555 Promoter 6:37140485 C > G
2 rs720373055 Promoter 6:37140513 T > C
3 rs715189731 Promoter 6:37140514 A > G
4 rs516876447 Promoter 6:37140523 A > G
5 rs461857269 Promoter 6:37140644 C > T
6 rs136548163 Promoter 6:37140675 C > T
7 rs720349928 Promoter 6:37140681 G > A
8 rs717884982 5’UTR 6:37140763 C > T
9 rs722359733 5’UTR 6:37140767 C > T
10 rs481631804 5’UTR 6:37140772 C > T
11 rs462932574 5’UTR 6:37140789 T > G

Allelic and genotypic frequencies of SNPs

Table 2 summarizes the genotypic and allelic frequencies, PIC, Ho, He, ne, and the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium χ2 test for the identified SNPs of LAP3 gene promoter variants in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle. Except for the SNP rs516876447: A>G, where the mutant allele frequency was higher than the wild type allele frequency in the examined population, the wild type allele frequencies were the dominant alleles at loci for other SNPs. According to Chi squared test, for 3 SNP generated genotypes (rs717156555: C>G, rs516876447: A>G & rs722359733: C>T), the individual frequencies of the genotypes significantly differed from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (P < 0.05). The possible explanation for this could be: (1) Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle are among the well-established indigenous and crossbred cattle breeds in India known to have good genetic potential to produce considerably large quantities of milk, selection pressure for increased milk production infers the loss of non-favourable alleles. (2) The effect of small population size used for the study cannot be neglected. The PIC is a useful variable for assessing genetic diversity from different candidate gene loci. Our results showed that all SNPs were in medium polymorphism level (0.25<PIC<0.50). Furthermore, the population under study has a medium to high effective allele number (ranging from 1.42 to 1.97). This suggests that these SNPs may be subjected to selection.

Table 2. The genotypic and allelic frequencies, as well as population indices for the identified loci of LAP3 gene promoter variants in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle.

SNPs Genotypic frequency Allele frequency χ2 PIC Ho He ne*
rs717156555: C>G CC CG GG C G 4.70* 0.27 0.269 0.316 1.459
0.67 0.27 0.06 0.80 0.20
rs720373055: T>C TT TC CC T C 0.002 0.28 0.302 0.301 1.429
0.64 0.29 0.07 0.78 0.22
rs516876447: A>G AA AG GG A G 18.475*** 0.37 0.349 0.495 1.974
0.27 0.35 0.38 0.44 0.56
rs461857269: C>T CC CT TT C T 1.088 0.26 0.288 0.310 1.447
0.66 0.29 0.05 0.81 0.19
rs720349928: G>A GG GA AA G A 0.464 0.27 0.278 0.292 1.410
0.66 0.28 0.06 0.80 0.20
rs722359733: C>T CC CT TT C T 6.660*** 0.28 0.278 0.338 1.508
0.65 0.28 0.07 0.79 0.21
rs462932574: T>G TT TG GG T G 0.017 0.26 0.307 0.304 1.435
0.64 0.30 0.06 0.81 0.19

*** = Significant at P < 0.001

* = Significant at P < 0.05, χ2 = Chi–square, PIC = Polymorphic information content, He = Expected heterozygosity, Ho = Observed heterozygosity, ne* = Effective number of alleles

Haplotype analysis

Haplotype analysis was carried out using the SNPstat online server (https://www.snpstats.net/analyzer.php) [31]. Within the studied population, 16 haplotypes were detected (S1 Table), with frequencies ranging from 0.4272 (H1: CTACGCT) to 0.001(H16: CTGCGCG), respectively. However, genetic polymorphisms prevalent in both populations and haplotypes with frequencies greater than 5% were kept for association analysis. As a result, in the association study, four haplotypes were used: H1(CTACGCT), H2 (CTGCGTT), H3 (GCGTACG), and H4 (CTGCGCT), as well as five diplotypes: H1H1(CTACGCT/ CTACGCT), H1H2 (CTACGCT/ CTGCGTT), H1H3 (CTACGCT/ GCGTACG), H1H4 (CTACGCT/ CTGCGCT) and H3H4 (GCGTACG/ CTGCGCT) (Table 4).

Table 4. Association of diplotypes of LAP3 gene with estimated breeding values of milk production traits in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle.

Diplotypes Frequency (N) LMY (kg) 305dMY (kg) 305dFY (kg) 305dSNFY (kg) LL (day)
H1H1 39.46 (58) 88.14b 61.88cb -0.069 -0.70 3.14b
H1H2 15.65 (23) -16.83c 9.12c -0.56 -1.22 0.44b
H1H3 17.01(25) 353.87a 289.29a 1.33 2.09 10.92a
H1H4 17.01(25) 99.72ab 86.75cb 0.26 -0.22 4.32b
H3H4 10.88 (16) 241.27ab 233.65ab 0.26 0.25 4.75b
P 0.0021 0.0001 0.3172 0.3056 0.0122

Least square means in the same column with different superscripts (a, b, and c) differ significantly at P < 0.01 and P < 0.001, H1H1 = CC–TT–AA–CC–GG–CC–TT, H1H2 = CC–TT–AG–CC–GG–CT–TT, H1H3 = CG–TC–AG–CT–GA–CC–TG, H1H4 = CC–TT–AG–CC–GG–CC–TT, H3H4 = CG–TC–GG–CT–GA–CC–TG. Haplotypes with frequency less than 0.05 were ignored in analysis.

Associations of SNPs and haplotype combinations with estimated breeding values of milk production traits

The associations analysis results between the SNPs in the promoter and 5’UTR of bovine LAP3 gene and EBVs of milk production traits are shown in Table 3. Two SNPs (rs720373055: T>C and rs720349928: G>A) were significantly associated with EBVs of LMY and 305dMY. In terms of LMY and 305dMY, animals with genotype CC (rs720373055: T>C) and GG (rs720349928: G>A) had significantly higher lactation performance (Table 3), indicating that allele C and G are associated with superior genetic merit for milk production traits in the studied population (S2 Table). There is also a significant association between the SNP rs722359733: C>T and LL, with genotype CC being linked to longer lactation than genotype CT and TT (P < 0.05), respectively. Furthermore, it was found that the promoter region rs720373055: T>C and rs715189731: A>G resulted in the generation of TFBSs for the LAP3 gene’s corresponding transcription factor C2H2 zinc finger transcription factor 26 (ZF26). The SNP, rs720349928: G>A, was also predicted to alter the TFBSs for the corresponding transcription factors via zinc transcriptional regulatory element (ZTRE), CTCF and brother of the regulator of imprinted sites (BORIS) gene families, AHR-arnt heterodimers and AHR-related factors (AHRR), C2H2 zinc finger transcription factors 15 (ZF15) and Vertebrate homologues of enhancer of split complex (HESF), respectively. As a result, the higher lactation performance of CC (rs720373055: T>C) genotyped cows could be attributed to the regulation of rs720373055: T>C on the transcriptional activity of the LAP3 promoter, primarily through the transcription factor ZF26, where the T to C substitution may be responsible for changes in the animals’ milk production parameters. Similarly, the presence of G allele at rs720349928: G>A created ZTRE, CTCF + BORIS gene family, AHRR, ZF15 and HESF transcription factor binding sites, which was eliminated with the presence of the A allele could thus potentially affect LMY and 305dMY of AA genotype cows. However, further studies using gel shift assays are needed to confirm the regulatory role of these SNPs on milk production traits in cattle. Previous research; such as [37, 38], who reported that SNPs with in the regulatory regions can disrupt transcription via altering TFBSs or RNA stability. Wang et al. [39], noticed that SNPs in the transcription factor binding sites might cause phenotypic variation by inducing variances in gene expression.

Table 3. Associations of different genotypes of SNPs in LAP3 gene with estimated breeding values of milk production traits.

Loci Genotype LMY (kg) 305dMY (kg) 305dFY (kg) 305dSNFY (kg) LL (day)
rs717156555: C>G CC (142) 17.92 143.60 2.14 2.68 4.29
CG (57) 276.96 168.50 -0.53 -0.96 4.57
GG (13) 202.96 90.02 -1.74 -2.85 5.62
P 0.2742 0.7122 0.1345 0.3009 0.9862
rs720373055: T>C TT (136) 1.26b -141.62b -2.41 -4.91 1.87
TC (61) -136.50c -83.61b -1.22 -1.73 -3.80
CC (15) 633.08a 627.35a 3.48 5.51 16.41
P 0.00614 0.0030 0.1437 0.1456 0.3763
rs516876447: A>G AA (57) 185.98 138.33 0.19 -0.07 7.16
AG (74) 181.44 154.10 0.20 0.004 6.18
GG (81) 130.42 109.67 -0.53 -1.06 1.15
P 0.7351 0.6011 0.4808 0.6235 0.2242
rs461857269: C>T CC (141) 173.05 213.35 0.55 1.30 9.04
CT (61) 256.47 165.65 -0.55 -1.50 3.60
TT (10) 68.32 23.12 -0.15 -0.94 1.84
P 0.6395 0.4538 0.8202 0.6798 0.7631
rs720349928: G>A GG (140) 401.20a 260.66a -0.58 -0.800 0.62
GA (59) 288.78ab 305.14a 2.45 3.39 16.62
AA (13) -192.14b -163.69b -2.01 -3.71 -2.75
P 0.0001 0.0001 0.0881 0.1380 0.1692
rs722359733: C>T CC (137) 149.27 119.08 -0.28 -0.74 4.54a
CT (59) 51.72 46.84 -0.66 -1.28 -4.68b
TT (16) 54.93 40.79 -0.36 -0.87 -0.80ab
P 0.3551 0.2936 0.8045 0.8759 0.0096
rs462932574: T>G TT (135) 55.01 44.78 -0.16 -0.61 -0.42
TG (65) 115.27 85.49 -0.31 -0.63 2.53
GG (12) 85.65 76.45 -0.83 -1.66 -3.04
P 0.5011 0.5175 0.8364 0.8919 0.3232

a,b,c = Least squares means with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05), LMY = Lactation milk yield, 305dMY = 305–day milk yield, 305dFY = 305–day fat yield, 305dSNFY = 305–day solid not fat yield, LL = Lactation length, kg = kilogram

Thus, the effect of haplotype combinations on EBVs milk production traits in cattle was analyzed (Table 4). The frequencies of haplotype combinations < 5.0% were not considered. Haplotypes composed of SNPs could provide accurate information than single SNP analysis for economic trait associations, due to the ancestral structure captured in the distribution of haplotypes [40]. In the current study, statistical analysis revealed a significant relationship between haplotype combinations and EBVs of LMY (P value = 0.0021), 305dMY (P value = 0.0001) and LL (P value = 0.0122), but not with 305dFY and 305dSNFY (Table 4). Cows carrying haplotype combination H1H3 (CTACGCT/ GCGTACG) had the highest EBVs of LMY, 305dMY and LL, whereas cows with H1H2 (CTACGCT/ CTGCGTT) had the lowest lactation performance. This study shows for the first time that the SNPs genotypes and haplotype combination in promoter variants of the LAP3 gene has a substantial correlation with EBVs of milk production traits in lactating dairy Sahiwal and Karan Fries cows.

Association between LAP3 gene and economically important traits in cattle was reported in a few studies [1922]. The previous studies found that genetic changes in the promoter regions might result in large potential phenotype variability, which provides useful SNP marker information for dairy breeding schemes [39, 41]. Other than the SNPs loci identified in this study, [23] reported two novel SNPs in the promoter region of the bovine PEPS gene, and they found that the combined analysis of these SNPs, g.-534T>C and g.-2545G>A, were significantly associated with fat percentage and SCS traits in Chinese Holstein cattle. In addition, the mutation (g.25415T>C) within the 3’UTR (exon 13) region of the LAP3 gene was found to be statistically significant for protein percentage in three cattle breeds of China [20].

In light of all these, it is believed that QTL effects in the LAP3 gene on chromosome 6 altered milk production traits in the examined breeds. Previous studies [15, 16], showed the presence of one or more QTL for milk production traits on BTA6. A QTL with large impact on milk production traits was also mapped to a 420-kb interval on Bovine chromosome six between the genes ABCG2 and LAP3 [17]. Consequently, Olsen et al. [18] mapped a QTL in a 420- kb region of Bovine chromosome 6 that contains six milk production candidate genes, including the LAP3 gene. Despite the fact that the LAP3 gene, which is located near QTL, is crucial for milk performance traits [18, 21, 22]. Another evidence claims that, statistically significant estimations of QTL impacts on breeding value in chromosome 6 of Holstein cattle varied from 340 to 640 kg of milk, 15.6 to 28.4 kg of fat, and 14.4 to 17.6 kg of protein [42]. In a nutshell, this study reported previously unknown SNPs in the promoter and 5’UTR regions of the LAP3 gene that were associated with EBVs of LMY, 305dMY and LL in lactating dairy cattle. According to the findings of this study, the bovine LAP3 gene could be a promising candidate gene for increasing milk production traits in dairy cattle, and it could be used in a marker assisted selection program to improve desirable traits in cattle. However, to form a firm conclusion on the effects of the significant SNPs genotypes and haplotype combinations, a substantial larger sample size is required.

Associations between diplotypes and incidence of clinical mastitis

In this study, SNPs were evaluated individually and found to have no significant effects on the incidence of clinical mastitis. However, when doing the association study with diplotype (haplotype combination), the effect was shown to be significant, hence only the association analysis between diplotypes and incidence of clinical mastitis was reported in Tables 5 and 6. Moreover, the result indicated that period of calving, and season of calving (S3 Table) were all found to be significant for the incidence of clinical mastitis. The results showed that, the incidence of clinical mastitis was higher for the cows calved during period 5 (2003–2007) and 6 (2008–2012) than for cows calved during period 7 (2013–2020), with odds ratios of 4.41 and 4.61 for period 5 and 6, respectively, compared to period 7 (S3 Table). Similarly, cows that calved between April and June (season 2) had higher incidence of clinical mastitis, with an odds ratio of 8.87 in season 2 (April-June) compared to season 1 (December-March), season 3 (July-September), and season 4 (October-November) (S3 Table).

Table 5. Chi–square values for mastitis affected and not affected animals with respect to genetic variants of LAP3 gene in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle.

Diplotypes Mastitis Total χ2 value
Non-affected animals Affected animals
No (%) No (%) 3.55
H1H1 (CC-TT-AA-CC-GG-CC-TT) 36 62.07 22 37.93 58
H1H2 (CC-TT-AG-CC-GG-CT-TT) 15 65.22 8 34.78 23
H1H3 (CG-TC-AG-CT-GA-CC-TG) 18 72.00 7 28.00 25
H1H4 (CC-TT-AG-CC-GG-CC-TT) 12 48.00 13 52.00 25
H3H4 (CG-TC-GG-CT-GA-CC-TG) 11 68.75 5 31.25 16

No = Number of observations, χ2 = Chi–square

Table 6. Effect of diplotypes of LAP3 gene on the incidence of clinical mastitis in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle.

Effect Wald chi square Odds ratio 95% CI
Diplotype* H1H1 5.39 5.53 1.16–26.38
H1H2 1.85 1.08 0.19–6.18
H1H3 2.96 0.990 0.19–5.22
H1H4 9.36 10.36 1.79–59.82
H3H4 - - -

* = P < 0.05, CI = Confidence interval, SE = Standard error

Logistic regression analysis of haplotype combination in promoter variants of LAP3 gene revealed that, cows carrying haplotype combination H1H1 and H1H4 were more prone to clinical mastitis than other haplotype combinations, with odds ratios of 5.53 (1.16–26.38) and 10.36 (1.79–59.82), respectively (Table 6). Whereas, cows with the haplotype combinations H1H2 and H1H3 were shown to be less susceptible to the incidence of clinical mastitis than other cows, as the odds ratio for the non-incidence of clinical mastitis was found to be lower (Table 6). This was clearly confirmed in the χ2 values given in Table 5, the frequency of haplotype combination H1H2 (34.78%) and H1H3 (28.00%) in the mastitis affected animal group was low. In this study, cows with haplotype combination H1H3 had higher EBVs for LMY, 305dMY and LL (Table 4) as well as being resistant to clinical mastitis (Tables 5 & 6). As a result, inclusion of these markers in the selection program will speed up the simultaneous improvement of mastitis resistance and milk production traits and thus improving the dairy farm profitability. Looking at the effect of haplotype combinations rather than individual SNPs, it is found that using haplotype combinations within the promoter variants of LAP3 gene gives a better indication of a cow’s ability to resist incidence of clinical mastitis and improved lactation performance, and could resolve the prior studies’ conflicting association results focusing on a single SNP. The genotype combination effect is a reflection of interactions between many SNPs, hence genotype combination analysis is preferred to single SNP analysis [20]. This agrees with [43], who found that genotype combinations were more effective in terms of inheritance than a single SNP. The area under the curve (AUC), also known as the index of accuracy (A) or concordance (c) statistics corresponding to the ROC curve, is a standard measure of the logistic regression model’s predictive accuracy when the outcomes are binary [44]. The higher the area under the curve, the better model’s prediction power. In the present study the model’s concordance (c) value is 0.79, indicating that the model is more accurate.

Prediction of TFBS changes caused by the SNPs and investigation of CpG islands in LAP3 promoter region

By performing MatInspector in the genomatix suite, three SNPs in the promoter region of the LAP3 gene, rs720373055: T>C, rs715189731: A>G, and rs720349928: G>A, altered the binding sites of some transcription factors (Fig 2). The substitution of T to C in the rs720373055: T>C and A to G in the rs715189731: A>G resulted in the generation of TFBS for C2H2 zinc finger transcription factor 26 (ZF26). The allele G of rs720349928: G>A created TFBSs for ZTRE (Zinc transcriptional regulatory element), CTCF and BORIS gene family (CTCF+BORIS), AHRR (AHR-arnt heterodimers and AHR-related factors), ZF15 (C2H2 zinc finger transcription factors 15) and HESF (vertebrate homologues of enhancer of split complex) that were eliminated upon its substitution by the A allele (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Bioinformatics analysis and schematic illustration of SNPs that altered transcription factor binding sites in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene.

Fig 2

The translation start site (ATG) is marked with +1, the transcription factor binding sites are shown with ellipse, g.– 308T>C (rs720373055: T>C), g.– 307A>G (rs715189731: A>G) and g.– 140G>A (rs720349928: G>A). A blue X means transcription factor binding sites eliminated up on its substitution by the mutant allele.

To further explore the regulatory elements that are involved in the cattle LAP3 promoter region, CpG islands were investigated using two algorithms. Using the CpG island searcher program (CpGi130) accessible at web link http://dbcat.cgm.ntu.edu.tw/ and the EMBOSS CpG plot (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/seqstats/emboss_cpgplot/), it was found one (1) CpG island located within the region of -48 to -481 bp in the promoter region (Fig 3). These findings are comparable with those of [23], who found a CpG island in the 5’ flanking region (-448 bp to +55 bp) of the bovine PEPS (LAP3) gene and a core promoter area in the -587 bp to -236 bp region, as well as a typical TATA box from the translation start codon. Polymorphisms that influence gene transcription and expression are gaining a lot of interest since they are responsible for a lot of heritable phenotypic differences [45].

Fig 3. Promoter CpG island analysis in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene by the EMBOSS CpG plot (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Tools/seqstats/emboss_cpgplot/) with a window size of 100 bp and the following set options: Observed CpG/Expected CpG ratio ≥ 0.65, GC content > 50% and length > 200 bp.

Fig 3

Only one CpG island (433 bp) was detected within the sequence –48 to –481.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it first explored genetic variants in the promoter and 5’UTR of the LAP3 gene and uncovered associations between the SNPs and milk production traits as well as clinical mastitis in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle. The results demonstrated that the SNPs rs720373055: T>C and rs720349928: G>A were significantly associated with EBVs of LMY and 305dMY by possibly influencing TFBs, and that rs722359733: C>T polymorphism was significantly related to LL. In addition, the H1H3 (CTACGCT/ GCGTACG) diplotype had significantly higher estimated breeding values of LMY, 305dMY, and LL than other diplotypes. Cows with H1H2 and H1H3 haplotype combinations were found to be less susceptible to the incidence of clinical mastitis than other cows. Selection of H1H3 diplotyped animals will therefore accelerate genetic progress in the positive direction for both milk production and mastitis resistance, with an aid to selection for simultaneous improvement of animals. However, further research into the validation of these associations in larger population, as well as functional validation, is required before they can be incorporated into a panel for MAS program. If further research confirms our hypothesis, the H1H3 diplotype could be a convincing molecular marker in breeding dairy cows for high milk production and high mastitis resistance.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Haplotypes and haplotype frequencies of seven SNPs in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene promoter region.

H = Haplotypes.

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Allele substitution effect in rs720373055: T>C and rs720349928: G>A polymorphisms in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene on lactation milk yield and 305-day milk yield.

a,bMeans with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05); α = Allele substitution effect.

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Effect of breed, period of calving and season of calving on the incidence of clinical mastitis in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle.

** = P < 0.01; * = P < 0.05; CI = Confidence interval; P/calving = Period of calving; S/calving = Season of calving.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

Authors are thankful to the Director, ICAR- National Dairy Research Institute, Head, Dairy Cattle Breeding Division for providing necessary facilities in the lab for carrying out the above work.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This research was financially supported by Animal Genetics and Breeding Division of ICAR-National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal, India. Destaw Worku received the fund. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Poonam R, Chakravarty AK, Manoj K. Assessment of relation among production and reproduction traits in Sahiwal cattle at an organized herd of northern India. Biological Rhythm Research, 2019. doi: 10.1080/09291016.2019.1628391 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Joshi BK, Singh A, Gandhi RS. Performance evaluation, conservation and improvement of Sahiwal cattle in India. Animal Genetic Resources, 2001; 31, 43–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bajwa IR, Khan MS, Khan MA, Gondal KZ. Environmental factors affecting milk yield and lactation length in Sahiwal cattle. Pakistan Veterinary Journal, 2004; 24(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bangar YC, Verma MR, Dohare AK, Mukherjee R. Meta-analysis of prevalence of clinical mastitis in crossbred cows in India (1995–2014). Journal of Animal Research, 2016; 6(6), 933–938. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Van Den Borne BH, Van Schaik G, Lam TJ, Nielen M. Variation in herd level mastitis indicators between primi and multiparae in Dutch dairy herds. Preve Vet Med, 2010; 96(1–2): 49–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Thompson- Crispi K, Atalla H, Miglior F, Mallard BA. Bovine mastitis. Frontiers in Immunogenetics. Frontiers in Immunology, 2014; 5, 493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gaafar HMA, Basiuoni MI, Ali MFE, Shitta AA, Shamas ASE. Effect of Zinc Methionine supplementation on somatic cell count in milk and mastitis in Friesian cows. Spanish Journal of Rural Development, 2010; 53–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kuss AW, Gogol J, Geidermann H. Associations of a polymorphic AP-2 binding site in the 5’-flanking regions of the bovine beta-lactoglobulin gene with milk proteins. Journal of Dairy Science, 2003; 86, 2213–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Khatib H, Zaitoun I, Wiebelhaus- Finger J, Chang YM, Rosa GJM. The association of bovine PPARGC1A and OPN genes with milk composition in two independent Holstein cattle populations. Journal of Dairy Science, 2007; 90, 2966–70. doi: 10.3168/jds.2006-812 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Taylor A. Aminopeptidases: structure and function. FASEBJ7,1993; 290–298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Noboru Y, Seiji N, Takanobu S, Atsuo I, Mitsuaki I, Tomomitsu O, et al. Placenta leucine aminopeptidase/oxytocinase in maternal serum and placenta during normal pregnancy. Life Science, 2000; 15, 1401–1410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Matsui M, Fowler JH, Walling LL. Leucine aminopeptidases: diversity in structure and function. Biological Chemistry, 2006; 387, 1535–1544. doi: 10.1515/BC.2006.191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kloetzel PM, Ossendorp F. Proteasome and peptidase function in MHC-class-I-mediated antigen presentation. Current Opinion Immunology, 2004; 16, 76–81. doi: 10.1016/j.coi.2003.11.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Ogorevc J, Kunej T, Razpet A, et al. Database of cattle candidate genes and genetic markers for milk production and mastitis. Animal Genetics, 2009; 40, 832–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2009.01921.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Ogorevc J, Kunej T, Razpet A, et al. Database of cattle candidate genes and genetic markers for milk production and mastitis. Animal Genetics, 2009; 40, 832–51. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2009.01921.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Khatkar M, Thomson P, Tammen I, Raadsma H. Quantitative trait loci mapping in dairy cattle: Review and meta-analysis. Genetics selection evolution, 2004; 36,163–90. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-36-2-163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Olsen HG, Lien S, Svendsen M, et al. Fine mapping of milk production QTL on BTA6 by combined linkage and linkage disequilibrium analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 2004; 87, 690–698. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73212-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Olsen HG, Lien S, Gautier M, Nilsen H, Roseth A, Berg PR, et al. Mapping of a milk production quantitative trait locus to a 420-kb region on bovine chromosome 6. Genetics, 2005; 169, 275–283. doi: 10.1534/genetics.104.031559 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Worku D, Gowane GR, Mukherjee A, Alex R, Joshi P, Verma A. Association between polymorphisms of LAP3 and SIRT1 genes with clinical mastitis and milk production traits in Sahiwal and Karan Fries dairy cattle. Veterinary Medicine and Science, 2022; 00, 1–12. doi: 10.1002/vms3.924 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zheng X, Ju ZH, Wang J, Li QL, Huang JM, Zhang AW, et al. Single nucleotide polymorphisms, haplotypes and combined genotypes of LAP3 gene in bovine and their association with milk production traits. Molecular Biology Reports, 2011; 38, 4053–4061. doi: 10.1007/s11033-010-0524-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sheely PA, Riley LG, Raadsma HW, Williamson P, Wynn PC. A function genomics approach to evaluate genes located in a QTL interval for milk production traits on BTA6. Animal Genetics, 2009; 40, 492–499. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cohen-Zinder M, Seroussi E, Larkin DM, Loor JJ, Wind AE, Lee JH, et al. 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 Research, 2005; 15, 936–944. doi: 10.1101/gr.3806705 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ju Z, Zheng X, Huang J, Qi C, Zhang Y, Li J, et al. Functional characterization of genetic polymorphisms identified in the promoter region of the bovine PEPS gene. DNA Cell Biology, 2012; 31, 1038–45. doi: 10.1089/dna.2011.1555 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Daltro DS, da Silva MVGB, Gama LT, Machado JD, Kern EL, Campos GS, et al. Estimates of genetic and crossbreeding parameters for 305-day milk yield of Girolando cows. Ital. Journal of Animal Science, 2019; 19, 86–94. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Lourenço D, Aguilar I, Legarra A, Vitezica Z. Manual for BLUPF90 Family of Programs, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Sambrook J and Russell D. Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 2001. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New York. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Andreas U, Harm N, Xiangyu R, Ton B, Rene G, Jack AML. Primer3Plus, an enhanced web interface to Primer3. Nucleic Acids Research, 2007; 35, W71–W74. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkm306 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.CodonCode Aligner version 9.0. CodonCode Corporation, Centerville, MA. 2021. http://www.codoncode.com/aligner/.
  • 29.Tamura K, Stecher G, Kumar S. MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 11. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 2021; 38(7), 3022–3027. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Yeh FC, Yang RC, Boyle T. PopGene version 1.31: Microsoft window-based free software for population genetic analysis, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sole X, Guino E, Valls J, Iniesta R, Moreno V. SNPStats: A web tool for the analysis of association studies. Bioinformatics, 2006; 22, 1928–1929. https://www.snpstats.net/analyzer.php. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT® 9.2 User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Falconer DS, Mackay TFC. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th ed.1996, London, England; Longman group, 463. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Cartharius K, Frech K, Grote K, Klocke B, Haltmeier M, Klingenhoff A, et al. MatInspector and beyond: Promoter analysis based on transcription factor binding sites. Bioinformatics, 2005; 21, 2933–2942. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti473 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Takai D, Jones PA. Comprehensive analysis of CpG islands in human chromosomes 21 and 22. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2002; 99, 3740–5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.052410099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Rice P, Longden I, Bleasby A. EMBOSS: The European Molecular Biology Open Software Suite. Trends in Genetics, 2000; 16(6), 276–277. doi: 10.1016/s0168-9525(00)02024-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Huang YZ, Li MX, Wang J, et al. A 5’-regulatory region and two coding region polymorphisms modulate promoter activity and gene expression of the growth suppressor gene ZBED6 in cattle. PLoS ONE, 2013; 8, e79744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079744 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Aslan O, Hamill RM, Mullen AM, Davey GC, Gil M, Gladney CD, et al. Association between promoter polymorphisms in a key cytoskeletal gene (Ankyrin 1) and intramuscular fat and water-holding capacity in porcine muscle. Molecular Biology Reports, 2011; 39, 3903–14. doi: 10.1007/s11033-011-1169-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wang X, Tomso DJ, Liu X, Bell DA. Single nucleotide polymorphism in transcriptional regulatory regions and expression of environmentally responsive genes. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol, 2005; 207, S84–S90. doi: 10.1016/j.taap.2004.09.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Sayed HAR, Rajwali K, Linsheng Gui, Nicola MS, Xiaoyu W, Chugang M, et al. Bioinformatics analysis and genetic polymorphisms in genomic region of the bovine SH2B2 gene and their associations with molecular breeding for body size traits in qinchuan beef cattle. Bioscience Reports, 2020; 40, BSR20192113. doi: 10.1042/BSR20192113 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Goddard ME, Hayes BJ. Genomic selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 2007; 124, 323–330. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00702.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Nadesalingam J, Yves P, Gibson JP. Detection of QTL for milk production on Chromosomes1 and 6 of Holstein cattle. Mammalian Genome, 2001; 12, 27–31. doi: 10.1007/s003350010232 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Fallin D, Cohen A, Essioux L, Chumakov I, Blumenfeld M, Cohen D, et al. Genetic analysis of case/control data using estimated haplotype frequencies: application to APOE locus variation and Alzheimer’s disease. Genome Research, 2001; 11, 143–151. doi: 10.1101/gr.148401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Austin PC, Steyerberg EW. Interpreting the concordance statistic of a logistic regression model: relation to the variance and odds ratio of a continuous explanatory variable. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2012; 12, 82. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-82 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Xie XH, Lu J, Kulbokas EJ, Golub TR, Mootha V, Lindblad- Toh K, et al. Systematic discovery of regulatory motifs in human promoters and 3’UTRs by comparison of several mammals. Nature, 2005; 338–345. doi: 10.1038/nature03441 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Julio Cesar de Souza

5 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-15483Genetic variation in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene associated with estimated breeding values of milk production traits and clinical mastitis in dairy cattlePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Worku,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Dear Sir, there are the reviewer's comments. Please make the adjustment (in highlight).

Thanks,

Best regards,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 19 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Julio Cesar de Souza, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Sir, there are the reviewer's comments. Please make the adjustment (in highlight).

Thanks,

Best regards,

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Reviewer comments:

Point1: This paper reported the genetic variation of LAP3 gene and 5'UTR promoter region, and uncovered the association between SNP and milk production characteristics and clinical mastitis of Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle.

Although the data is novel and the results are interesting. However, this paper is generally good written but it can be improved, and some amendments should be addressed.

Point2: the materials and methods have been well written. Author used Primer3 to design Primer; however, author should include the References (lines 137,151, 154, 162, 165, 185 and 189).

Point3: Results and Discussion. The authors should split the combined Result and Discussion part into two parts (Results and Discussion, respectively). By doing so, readers could appreciate the meaning of your work. In many cases, the results of the paper end up with something like "consistent with previous reports", which could not highlight the importance of your work.

Point4: Line 214 no need this description here without figure, the description should be present on the figure.

Point5: In the FIGUERs. All the figures should be titled and described as well.

Point6: in conclusion. "The conclusions seem to be descriptive". Try to summarize the findings you write in the conclusion by limiting reporting to the most important findings.

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, the authors did a welcome attempt to describe the genetic variation in the promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene associated with estimated breeding values of milk production traits and clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. The manuscript is interesting and has valuable results. However, the background needs more information regarding the breeds used in this study (which one is indigenous and which one is crossbred?). The authors repeated the use of subjective terms such as "we believe, our result" which is not acceptable in paper writing.

The numbers below correspond to the line numbers where corrections need to be carried out:

103: rephrase “we believe” as “it is believed”. No subjective terms

116: remove “The current study … Karan Fries” and start with Blood samples …

137: rephrase “PCR reaction … GTCTGC-3’) as “Primers LAP3- F (5’- GCTACGTGCAACCTTTCTCC- 3’) and LAP3- R (5’CTCACCTTCGTCAT 141 GTCTGC-3’) were used to amplify 537 bp of the bovine LAP3 gene (430 bp of 5’ flanking region +107 bp of exon 1)” and remove line 138, 139 and 140.

142- 143: please write the PCR components as concentrations and not as volumes.

144: please specify the annealing temperature used in this study

145-146: rephrase “Product specificity … electrophoresis” as “The PCR products were evaluated by 1.5 % agarose gel electrophoresis by staining with ethidium bromide”

149: please rephrase “sent for sequencing” as “sequenced”

150: remove sequencer

160: remove “for each polymorphism” and replace “analysed” with “calculated”

165: replace “SAS 9.2” with “SAS Version 9.2”

180: replace “LOGISTIC) with “Logistic”

206: rephrase “we came to the conclusion that” as “ it might be concluded that”

208: Among eleven SNPs being detected, seven of them were chosen for association analysis based on their heterozygosities in both breeds. What is the threshold of the heterozygosities?

214: In Fig 1 there are only 9 SNPs instead of 11???

219: rephrase “corresponding χ 2 test to assess whether or not the population was in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium” as “Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium χ 2 test for the identified SNPs of LAP3 gene promoter variants in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle”

234: Table 2 suppose to summarise the genotypic and allelic frequencies for all the eleven SNPs.

261: rephrase “we found” as “it was found”

279: rephrase “we further… cattle” as “the effects of haplotype combinations on EBVs of milk production traits in cattle was analyzed”

287: rephrase “In this study, we show for the first time” as “This study shows for the first time”

290- 299: should be moved to the introduction.

309: rephrase “we believe that” as “ it is believed that”

347: rephrase “our result indicated” as “ the result indicated”

367: rephrase “we found” as “it is found that”

378: in Table 5, Chi-square values are missing.

399: rephrase “we found one” as “it was found one…”

400: rephrase “Our findings” as “these findings”

417: rephrase “In conclusion, we first explored” as “In conclusion, it first explored…”

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Adam Abied

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 May 19;18(5):e0277156. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277156.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Jul 2022

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Dear Julio Cesar de Souza, Ph.D.

We would like to express our great appreciation to academic editor and the reviewers for a thorough reading and constructive criticism of our manuscript entitled “Genetic variation in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene associated with estimated breeding values of milk production traits and clinical mastitis in dairy cattle’’ (Manuscript ID: PONE-D-22-15483) and for the opportunity to revise and resubmit. All of these comments were very helpful for revising and improving our paper. We have considered these comments carefully and made corresponding corrections that we hope will meet with your approval. We are pleased to submit the revised research article. The changes in the revised manuscript are highlighted in blue, purple and red. On the following pages, you will find our response to the editor and reviewer comments.

On behalf of my co-authors, I thank you for your consideration of this resubmission. We appreciate your time and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Destaw Worku, PhD (corresponding author)

Animal Genetics and Breeding,

Salale University, Salale, Ethiopia

Authors response to the comments of the editor and reviewers for the manuscript “Genetic variation in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene associated with estimated breeding values of milk production traits and clinical mastitis in dairy cattle”

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

Response: Authors are thankful for providing us this link of PLOS ONE style requirements. According to your suggestion, we have carefully revised our manuscript and addressed PLOS ONE’S style requirements including manuscript body formatting guidelines. We believe that now the manuscript is in a better format and we hope that the revised manuscript fully adheres PLOS ONE's style requirements.

2. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for this observation and hence we have included full ethics statement under the materials and methods section of revised manuscript (Line number 123-128).

-------------------------------------------

Reviewer(s) Comments to the Author

-------------------------------------------

Reviewer #1:

Point1: This paper reported the genetic variation of LAP3 gene and 5’UTR promoter region, and uncovered the association between SNP and milk production characteristics and clinical mastitis of Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle. Although the data is novel and the results are interesting. However, this paper is generally good written but it can be improved, and some amendments can be addressed

Response: The Author’s would like to thank the reviewer for the detailed review of the manuscript and thoughtful comments. We have revised our manuscript, and made some amendments. We have addressed each point below and indicated in blue font in the revised manuscript.

Point2: the materials and methods have been written well. Authors used Primer3 to design Primer; however, author should include the References (lines 137,151, 154, 162, 165, 185 and 189).

Response: References are included as requested under the section heading of references in the revised manuscript (Lines 497, 499, 501, 505, 510 and 515).

Point3: Results and Discussion. The authors should split the combined Result and Discussion part into two parts (Results and Discussion, respectively). By doing so, readers could appreciate the meaning of your work. In many cases, the results of the paper end up with something like "consistent with previous reports", which could not highlight the importance of your work.

Response: We thank the reviewer to clarify this point. However, purposefully, we have combined the results and discussion section in this study, so as to allow more coherence and to discuss the results immediately after presenting them. However, as we could sense from your comments, this section is now written with care to avoid distraction of focus.

Point4: Line 214 no need this description here without figure, the description should be present on the figure.

Response: This was done as per the PLOS ONE journal’s requirement for manuscript submission. While we understand the reviewer's concern regarding the description without figure, we would like to point out that the PLOS ONE journal instruction for manuscript submission requires that figure captions are inserted immediately after the first paragraph in which the figure is cited. Figure files are uploaded separately. However, tables are inserted immediately after the first paragraph in which they are cited without uploading the tables separately.

Point5: In the FIGURES. All the figures should be titled and described as well.

Response: All figure titles are described well as requested.

Point6: in conclusion. "The conclusions seem to be descriptive". Try to summarize the findings you write in the conclusion by limiting reporting to the most important findings.

Response: Authors are thankful for the comment and following the comment, we have taken the opportunity to summarize the findings and further improve the conclusions in the revised draft. Please see the conclusion section of the revised draft.

Reviewer #2:

In this manuscript, the authors did a welcome attempt to describe the genetic variation in the promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene associated with estimated breeding values of milk production traits and clinical mastitis in dairy cattle. The manuscript is interesting and has valuable results. However, the background needs more information regarding the breeds used in this study (which one is indigenous and which one is crossbred?). The authors repeated the use of subjective terms such as "we believe, our result" which is not acceptable in paper writing.

Response: Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your detailed review of the manuscript and we sincerely appreciate these well-thought comments. The reviewer’s comments are very helpful for improving our manuscript. We have gone through each and every query and addressed all the comments in depth, which we hope to meet with acceptance requirements.

It is to note that Sahiwal is one of the most important milch breeds of indigenous cattle famous for higher milk production, remarkable power of endurance for hot climate of subtropics, comparatively resistant to diseases and low maintenance cost. Whereas, Karan Fries is a synthetic breed evolved by crossing Holstein Friesian (75%) and Tharparkar cattle. Therefore, the background information regarding the breeds used in this study have been updated under the section ‘introduction’ (Line number 73-80). Moreover, those subjective terms mentioned in the comments are removed and replaced with appropriate terms. All changes are highlighted in purple font in the revised manuscript.

103: rephrase “we believe” as “it is believed”. No subjective terms

Response: Needful done (Line number 111).

116: remove “The current study … Karan Fries” and start with Blood samples …

Response: “The current study involved 220 lactating dairy cows (110 Sahiwal and 110 Karan Fries)” removed and the paragraph started with blood samples…. (Line number 131).

137: rephrase “PCR reaction GTCTGC- 3’) as “Primers LAP3- F (5’- GCTACGTGCAACCTTTCTCC- 3’ and LAP3- R (5’CTCACCTTCGTCAT 141 GTCTGC- 3’) were used to amplify 537 bp of the bovine LAP3 gene (430 bp of 5’ flanking region +107 bp of exon 1)” and remove line 138, 139 and 140.

Response: This is rephrased in the revised manuscript now (Line number 151-153).

142- 143: please write the PCR components as concentrations and not as volumes.

Response: The PCR components re-written as concentrations (Line number 155).

144: Please specify the annealing temperature used in this study

Response: The annealing temperature used in this study is 59.50C. We have now provided the annealing temperature used in the revised draft. Please see line number 157.

145-146: rephrase “Product specificity … electrophoresis” as “The PCR products were evaluated by 1.5 % agarose gel electrophoresis by staining with ethidium bromide”

Response: We have modified the sentence as required (Line number 157-159).

149: please rephrase “sent for sequencing” as “sequenced”

Response: Needful done at line number 162.

150: remove sequencer

Response: Thank for the comment. We have now removed the word sequencer.

160: remove “for each polymorphism” and replace “analysed” with “calculated”

Response: The needful changes have been made in the revised draft (Line number 173).

165: replace “SAS 9.2” with “SAS Version 9.2”

Response: We have made the required changes in the mentioned line (Line number 177).

180: replace “LOGISTIC) with “Logistic”

Response: Thank you so much for catching this error, which we have replaced the word “LOGISTIC” with “Logistic” in the revised draft (Line number 192).

206: rephrase “we came to the conclusion that” as “ it might be concluded that”

Response: We agree with the comment and hence we have modified the text accordingly (Line number 219).

208: Among eleven SNPs being detected, seven of them were chosen for association analysis based on their heterozygosities in both breeds. What is the threshold of the heterozygosities?

Response: We thank for this opportunity to clarify this point. The authors would like to note that the genotypes which are present in both Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle breed, with frequency more than 5% were included for association analysis. However, the SNP genotypes showing frequencies less than 5% in both the studied population were excluded from association analysis. Please see line number 221.

214: In Fig 1 there are only 9 SNPs instead of 11???

Response: We thank the reviewer for this observation; the remaining 2 SNPs have now been included in Fig 1. of the revised draft and the problem has been fixed. Please see Figure 1 of the revised manuscript.

219: rephrase “corresponding χ 2 test to assess whether or not the population was in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium” as “Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium χ 2 test for the identified SNPs of LAP3 gene promoter variants in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle”

Response: We agree that “corresponding χ 2 test to assess whether or not the population was in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium” has been re-written to “Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium χ2 test for the identified SNPs of LAP3 gene promoter variants in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle” (Line number 232-234).

234: Table 2 suppose to summarise the genotypic and allelic frequencies for all the eleven SNPs.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important remark, but for this analysis, we respectfully point out that, among eleven SNPs being detected, seven of them, which are present in both the breeds with frequency more than 5% were chosen for association analysis. In view of this, table 2 summarized the genotypic and allelic frequencies for those seven SNPs chosen for association analysis only.

261: rephrase “we found” as “it was found”

Response: Agreed. “we found” replaced with “it was found” (Line number 274).

279: rephrase “we further… cattle” as “the effects of haplotype combinations on EBVs of milk production traits in cattle was analyzed”

Response: Needful done at line number 292-293.

287: rephrase “In this study, we show for the first time” as “This study shows for the first time”

Response: Needful done at line number 300.

290- 299: should be moved to the introduction.

Response: Authors are thankful for the comment and we have now moved this paragraph to the introduction section of the revised draft (Line number 94-103).

309: rephrase “we believe that” as “ it is believed that”

Response: This is done at line number 342.

347: rephrase “our result indicated” as “ the result indicated”

Response: This is done at line number 344.

367: rephrase “we found” as “it is found that”

Response: Done at line number 364.

378: in Table 5, Chi-square values are missing.

Response: We thank the reviewer for indicating this missing Chi-square value. But we are not sure about this comment since Chi-square value i.e 3.55 is already indicated in Table 5. We would appreciate if the reviewer could check this missing value in Table 5 (Line number 376-378).

399: rephrase “we found one” as “it was found one…”

Response: “we found one” replaced with “it was found one” at line number 396.

400: rephrase “Our findings” as “these findings”

Response: Done. “Our findings” replaced with “these findings” at line number 397.

417: rephrase “In conclusion, we first explored” as “In conclusion, it first explored…”

Response: Needful done at line number 414.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Julio Cesar de Souza

20 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-15483R1Genetic variation in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene associated with estimated breeding values of milk production traits and clinical mastitis in dairy cattlePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Worku,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Dear Sir, It is a pleasure to communicate that your work received the suggestions. We would like you to make the adjustments to complete the job.Best regards,Julio Souza

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 04 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Julio Cesar de Souza, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Sir,

It is a pleasure to communicate that your work received the suggestions. We would like you to make the adjustments to complete the job.

Yours sincerely,

Júlio Souza

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately addressed the raised comments; I am satisfied and recommend the manuscript accepted for publication.

Reviewer #2: All required questions have been answered and the authors have responded satisfactorily to my comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Adam Abied

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 May 19;18(5):e0277156. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277156.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


26 Sep 2022

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately addressed the raised comments; I am satisfied and recommend the manuscript accepted for publication.

Response: Authors are thankful for the comment.

Reviewer #2: All required questions have been answered and the authors have responded satisfactorily to my comments.

Response: Authors are thankful for the comment.

Additional minor corrections to the manuscript:

We have added the approval no. to the ethical statement at the materials and methods section of the revised manuscript (line number 128). Moreover, we have included one additional reference to the reference section of revised manuscript (line number 475).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Julio Cesar de Souza

21 Oct 2022

Genetic variation in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene associated with estimated breeding values of milk production traits and clinical mastitis in dairy cattle

PONE-D-22-15483R2

Dear Dr. Worku,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Julio Cesar de Souza, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear sir, whereas reviewers 1 and 2 accepted the adjustments.

I request that the paper be sent for publication.

Julio Souza

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Julio Cesar de Souza

11 May 2023

PONE-D-22-15483R2

Genetic variation in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene associated with estimated breeding values of milk production traits and clinical mastitis in dairy cattle

Dear Dr. Worku:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Julio Cesar de Souza

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Haplotypes and haplotype frequencies of seven SNPs in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene promoter region.

    H = Haplotypes.

    (DOCX)

    S2 Table. Allele substitution effect in rs720373055: T>C and rs720349928: G>A polymorphisms in promoter region of the bovine LAP3 gene on lactation milk yield and 305-day milk yield.

    a,bMeans with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05); α = Allele substitution effect.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Table. Effect of breed, period of calving and season of calving on the incidence of clinical mastitis in Sahiwal and Karan Fries cattle.

    ** = P < 0.01; * = P < 0.05; CI = Confidence interval; P/calving = Period of calving; S/calving = Season of calving.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES