Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Apr 25;19(4):e0301937. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301937

Selective signatures in composite MONTANA TROPICAL beef cattle reveal potential genomic regions for tropical adaptation

Camila Alves dos Santos 1,*,#, Joanir Pereira Eler 2,, Elisangela Chicaroni de Mattos Oliveira 2,, Rafael Espigolan 2,, Gabriela Giacomini 3,, José Bento Sterman Ferraz 2,, Tiago do Prado Paim 1,#
Editor: Tzen-Yuh Chiang4
PMCID: PMC11045132  PMID: 38662691

Abstract

Genomic regions related to tropical adaptability are of paramount importance for animal breeding nowadays, especially in the context of global climate change. Moreover, understanding the genomic architecture of these regions may be very relevant for aiding breeding programs in choosing the best selection scheme for tropical adaptation and/or implementing a crossbreeding scheme. The composite MONTANA TROPICAL® population was developed by crossing cattle of four different biological types to improve production in harsh environments. Pedigree and genotype data (51962 SNPs) from 3215 MONTANA TROPICAL® cattle were used to i) characterize the population structure; ii) identify signatures of selection with complementary approaches, i.e. Integrated Haplotype Score (iHS) and Runs of Homozygosity (ROH); and iii) understand genes and traits related to each selected region. The population structure based on principal components had a weak relationship with the genetic contribution of the different biological types. Clustering analyses (ADMIXTURE) showed different clusters according to the number of generations within the composite population. Considering results of both selection signatures approaches, we identified only one consensus region on chromosome 20 (35399405–40329703 bp). Genes in this region are related to immune function, regulation of epithelial cell differentiation, and cell response to ionizing radiation. This region harbors the slick locus which is related to slick hair and epidermis anatomy, both of which are related to heat stress adaptation. Also, QTLs in this region were related to feed intake, milk yield, mastitis, reproduction, and slick hair coat. The signatures of selection detected here arose in a few generations after crossbreeding between contrasting breeds. Therefore, it shows how important this genomic region may be for these animals to thrive in tropical conditions. Further investigations on sequencing this region can identify candidate genes for animal breeding and/or gene editing to tackle the challenges of climate change.

Background

Coping with environmental stress is a paramount physiological requirement for animals in subtropical and tropical regions [1]. The capacity to maintain a homeostatic body temperature in challenging environments allows animals to increase their production potential [2, 3]. Therefore, in a changing climate scenario, it is very important to understand the genetic background related to tropical adaptation.

Cattle are composed of two main subspecies: indicine or zebu (i.e., Bos primigenius indicus) and taurine (i.e., Bos primigenius taurus). Most of taurine animals were bred in temperate regions of the world [4]. As a result of the origins and breeding practices, both natural and artificial, cattle are broadly divided into temperate (taurine) and tropical (zebu) based on the common adaptation characteristics [5]. Notwithstanding, some taurine breeds adapted to tropical climate arose in some regions of Africa and America due to both natural and artificial breeding, e.g. Senepol [6] and Bonsmara [7].

These differences between biological groups can be used for crossbreeding to get animals better adapted to the environment and with higher production efficiency [8]. Kim et al. [9] showed that African cattle pastoralism succeeded due the arrival of indicine cattle and their crossbreeding with local taurine and that selection shaped the admixture proportion of taurine x indicine crossbreeds to increase diversity and facilitate evolutionary adaptation.

The composite MONTANA TROPICAL® cattle population (https://montana.org.br/) was developed in Brazil (starting in 1994) following the idea of using crossbreeding for formation of a tropical-efficient cattle population. This composite population (Fig 1) is based on crossbreeding of four different biological types or breed groups: 1) zebu breeds (N), 2) adapted taurine breeds (A), 3) British taurine breeds (B), and 4) Continental European taurine breeds (C) [10] (S1 Fig). The combination of these multiple breeds can change according to the farmer decisions based on the farm environment, nevertheless animals must have at least three groups of NABC in their pedigree to be considered Montana Tropical® (https://montana.org.br/). The maximum proportion of each group allowed is 37.5% for group N; 87.5% for group A; and 75% for group B and C together [11, 12]. The breeding program of Montana Tropical® emphasize adaptation and robustness characteristics and growth traits account for 70% of their selection index [13].

Fig 1. Montana Tropical® animals.

Fig 1

Knowledge of population structure is important to animal breeding program. This knowledge allows breeders to make more assertive and accurate decisions in breeding, diversity preservation, and selection [14]. Genetic composition based on pedigree estimation methods do not account for Mendelian sampling. By using genomic data, estimation of genetic parameters is less subject to input pedigree errors and better accounts of Mendelian sampling [15].

Genomic data can be used to identify runs of homozygosity (ROH) which are continuous homozygous segments inherited from common ancestors [16,17]. The formation of ROH can be influenced by inbreeding, genetic drift, population bottlenecks, as well as natural and artificial selection. Moreover, the evaluation of ROH can characterize the history of the population structure [18].

By analyzing the size of the ROH, it is possible to calculate a genomic inbreeding coefficient and classify inbreeding, with long segments related to recent inbreeding and short ones to older inbreeding [19]. The population frequency of ROH can be used as a tool to identify genomic regions under selection (i.e. signature of selection) [20].

Another method to detect signals of selection is the Integrated haplotype score (iHS), which is a statistical approach based on extended haplotype homozygosity (EHH). This method detects positive selection by the increased mutation frequency and long-range linkage disequilibrium [21]. Ben-Jemaa et al. [22] used iHS and complementary methods to identify selection sweeps related to adaptation and immune response in Maremmana cattle.

To better identify signatures of selection it is a good strategy to combine complementary approaches. ROH and Fst methods, for example, were able to identify selected regions related to heat stress and immunity in tropically adapted breeds along with genes related to hypoxia factors in temperate breeds raised in low-oxygen environments [23]. Liu et al. [24], for example, used these tools to identify signatures of selection in Shanghai Holstein cattle.

Using the MONTANA TROPICAL® composite population, we sought in this work to (1) characterize the population structure of composite MONTANA TROPICAL® beef cattle population through generations inside the population; (2) identify signatures of selection with complementary approaches (ROH and iHS); and (3) characterize genes in significant genomic regions under selection.

Results

Population structure

The equivalent complete generation (ECG) is a value that indicates how many generations each animal has within the population pedigree. ECG in our data varies from 1 to 6, which agrees with the population history as it was formed 29 years ago. Principal component analysis (PCA) showed a weak relationship between ECG estimated by pedigree and the first two PCs (Fig 2). Animals with higher number of generation (>4 ECG) were located in positive side of PC1 and close to zero in PC2, while animals of the initial generations (<2 ECG) had three diversity spots, one in the negative side of PC1 and other two in opposite sides of PC2.

Fig 2. First two components of principal component analysis using genomic data of 3215 MONTANA TROPICAL® animals.

Fig 2

Generations: corresponds to the number of ECG calculated based on pedigree data.

We conducted correlation and regression analyses to better comprehend the relationship between ECG and contribution ratio of the founder biological groups according to pedigree data (Zebu—N, Tropical Adapted Taurine–A, British Taurine–B and Continental Taurine—C). Tropical Adapted Taurine (A) and Continental Taurine (C) proportion had positive correlations (r = 0.33 and r = 0.16, respectively; p<0.001) with ECG. On the contrary, Zebu (N) and British Taurine (B) proportion had negative correlations (r = -0.19; and r = -0.29; p<0.001) with ECG. The regression analysis confirmed the trend of a 4% increase per generation in the proportion of Tropical Adapted Taurine (A) and a 3% decrease per generation in the proportion of British Taurine (B) based on pedigree within the composite population.

ADMIXTURE analyses demonstrated a uniform composition of recent MONTANA TROPICAL® animals (ECG≤2.5) at K = 2. Animals in intermediate generations (2.5<ECG≤4.5) had a more diverse composition. In advanced generations (ECG>4.5), animals with higher proportions of other clusters could be observed, differentiating this group of animals with the earlier generations of the population (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Population structure of composite MONTANA TROPICAL® population inferred by ADMIXTURE software.

Fig 3

Each animal is represented by a single vertical bar divided into K colors, where K is the number of assumed ancestral groupings, which is plotted from K equal 2 to 4. Cluster definitions based on K = 4: Cluster 1 = Blue, Cluster 2 = Red, Cluster 3 = Orange and Cluster 4 = Green.

At K = 3, one new cluster (red in Fig 3) showed a higher frequency in animals from advanced generations. Therefore, the ADMIXTURE results clearly showed a different genomic composition of the animals through advancing ECGs within the MONTANA TROPICAL® population.

To explore the statistical relationship between ADMIXTURE clusters (K = 4) and ECG, we also performed correlation and regression analyses. ECG had positive correlations with Cluster 1 (r = 0.58, p<0.001) and Cluster 2 (r = 0.23, p<0.001). Clusters 3 and 4 had negative correlations with ECG (r = -0.45 and r = -0.42, respectively). The regression analyses showed trends of a: 12% increase of C1 per generation; 4% increase of C2 per generation; 9% decrease of C3 per generation; and 0.7% decrease of C4 per generation. Therefore, the statistical analyses confirmed the change in clustering of animals according to ECG, therefore it can be related to selection pressures working on shaping genomic structure of the composite population through generations.

We combined the data from the four first principal components (PC1 to PC4), the four clusters of ADMIXTURE (C1 to C4) and the NABC founder proportions from the pedigree to form a new dataset with 12 variables for each animal. This data was used to perform another PCA (Fig 4) to better understand the relationship between genomic structure of the population and founders’ contribution ratios. We observed that PC1, ECG, C1, C2 and Tropical Adapted Taurine (A) proportion (based on pedigree) were all in a similar direction (Fig 4), suggesting that C1 and C2 represent the increase in genomic composition of Tropical Adapted Taurine (A) and the emergence of a genetic structure within MONTANA TROPICAL®. Cluster 3, PC3, and Zebu (N) proportion were also in the same direction (Fig 4). Cluster 4 and British Taurine (B) were also in the same position. Therefore, the ADMIXTURE clusters indicated the following associations: C1 with Tropical Adapted Taurine (A) and ECG; C2 with ECG; C3 with Zebu proportion (N); and C4 with British Taurine proportion (B).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Results of the first two components of principal components analysis using the dataset formed by pedigree-based breed composition (N—Zebu, A–Adapted taurine, B–British taurine, C–European Continental taurine), four clusters of the ADMIXTURE analysis (C1, C2, C3, C4), equivalent complete generation (ECG), and the first four components of PCA analysis using genomic information (PC1, PC2, PC3, PC4).

Signatures of selection

Of the 3215 evaluated animals, 3140 had at least one ROH segment in the genome, totaling 2349 ROH. The mean ROH length was 7.48 ± 0.08 Mb, varying until to 39 Mb (S1 Table). The average sum of all ROH segments per animal was 61.21 ± 1.10 Mb.

The genomic inbreeding coefficient (FROH) showed a significant positive regression with the inbreeding coefficient calculated using the pedigree (S2 Fig). The overall FROH of the composite MONTANA TROPICAL® population was 2% while the pedigree-based inbreeding coefficient was 0.8%. There was an increase in FROH as the number of ECGs increased (S3 Fig). There was no high-generation animal (ECG > 5) with FROH equal to zero, demonstrating the accumulated inbreeding through generations inside the composite.

We classified ROH based on the length according to number of previous generations to the common ancestor (1Mb<ROH<6.5Mb = more than 6 generations ago, 6.5Mb<ROH<8.7 Mb = between 6 and 4.5, 8.7Mb<ROH<15.6Mb = between 4.5 and 2.5 generations ago, and ROH>15.6 Mb = less than 2.5 generations ago). In the population, 95.89% had some ROH of size 1Mb<ROH<6.5Mb. The ROH length representing a common ancestor within the previous 2.5 generations (> 15.6 Mb) were identified in 39.45% of the animals, indicating the emergence of very recent inbreeding. The advanced generations (ECG > 4.5) showed significantly higher values of ROH than all generations (p< 0.0001), especially for the largest ROH segments (S4 Fig).

Runs of homozygosity analyses identified six genomic regions as putative selected regions (BTAU 3, 5, 6, 14, 20, 21), using the 1% threshold. However, when using the top 0.1%, only one genomic region (BTAU 20) arises (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Manhattan plot for iHS and ROH.

Fig 5

(A) Genome-wide distribution of signatures of selection detected by iHS. (B) Manhattan plot of incidence of each SNP in the ROH across individuals. The orange and blue line represents the threshold levels of top 1 % and 0.1%, respectively.

Identification of selection signatures was performed within three groups of animals based on ECG (<2.5 –recent; 2.5<ECG<4.5—intermediate; >4.5—advanced). The threshold of 1% (blue line) demonstrated different regions in each class of generation—recent (BTAU 3,5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21), intermediate (BTAU 3, 5, 14, 20, 21), advanced (BTAU 4, 6, 20, 26) (S5 Fig). The threshold of top 0.1% (orange line) showed ROH analysis found the same one significant region (BTAU 20) for the intermediate and advanced generation (S5 Fig), which was not seen on recent generation group. Moreover, the threshold of top 0.1% increased according to ECG, demonstrating the increasing frequency of homozygous segments according to selection through generations (S5 Fig).

The results of iHS analyses yielded estimated |iHS| scores for 46240 SNPs out of 51692 SNPs in total (S1 File). The 1% threshold (|iHS| > 2) showed several SNPs as possible signatures of selection. Most of chromosomes had some SNP above this threshold, of which only the BTAU 22, 24, 25 and 27 did not have a SNP with significant |iHS| score. When looking on the top 0.1% threshold, five regions were identified as putative selective signatures (BTAU 2, 4, 9,19, 20 and 21; Fig 4).

The selection signatures based on iHS (0.1% threshold) within ECG groups showed possible signatures of selection on: BTAU 1, 2, 9, 13, 15, 19, 20 e 23 for recent generations; BTAU 2, 9, 19, 20 and 23 for intermediate; and BTAU 1, 3 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 19, 20 and 21 for advanced generations. Therefore, the iHS results showed some variations between groups of animals.

Consensus regions between ROH and iHS

Considering both analyses (ROH and iHS), there was a consensus region in chromosome 20 (BTAU 20). This region had a size equal to 4.9 Mb (20:35399405–40329703). In the ROH analysis, we found one signature of selection region within BTAU 20. Considering iHS, three regions of signatures of selection were observed within BTAU 20 (S2 Table).

When looking at the different ECGs some differences in the frequency of signatures of selection within BTAU20 were found. In the animals from ECG<2.5, there were no ROH within this region. In the intermediated generations (2.5<ECG<4.5), the frequency of SNPs within the ROH island on BTAU20 was around 10%. Meanwhile, in the advanced generations (ECG>4.5) the SNP frequency within the ROH island on BTAU20 was 30% (S5 Fig). The iHS analyses into the three ECG groups yield 3, 4, and 4 putative selection signatures within this region for recent (<2.5), intermediate (2.5<ECG<4.5) and advanced generations (>4.5), respectively (S4 Fig).

Genes and QTLs in selected regions

The gene annotation under the consensus region of chromosome 20 found 32 genes. The QTLs were correlated with important features such as slick hair coat, feed intake, milk, reproduction, and immunity, which are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Genomic region identified by iHS and ROH analyses observed in MONTANA TROPICAL® composite animals, underlying genes and QTL identified in this region.

Chr Start (Bp) End (Bp) Size n Genes Genes QTLs
20 35399405 40329703 4930298 32 RICTOR, OSMR, LIFR, EGFLAM, GDNF, WDR70, NIPBL, NUP155, MIR2360, CPLANE1, NIPBL, SLC1A3, RANBP3L, NADK2, SKP2, LMBRD2, UGT3A2, CAPSL, IL7R, SPEF2, PRLR, DNAJC21, BRIX1, RAD1, TTC23L, RAI14, C1QTNF3, AMACR, SLC45A2, RXFP3, ADAMTS12, TRNAT-UGU, TARS Slick hair coat, Milk, feed intake, immunology, mastitis, meat, reproduction, weight

To better understand the functions of the candidate genes, we uploaded the 32 genes to Cytoscape ClueGo and obtained the GO biological network (Fig 6A and 6B). More details of the network can be seen in S6 Fig. All these genes were found to be involved in several gene clusters (S2 File) and 12 GO terms were significantly enriched (Fig 6C).

Fig 6. Functional Network showing gene interactions in the candidate region of BTAU20 and the relationship across genes and their subnetworks.

Fig 6

(A) Immune system biological process; (B) Regulation of epithelial differentiation; (C) Specific gene cluster analyzes of the GO Biological Process (p≤0.01).

Discussion

Population structure

The population structure of the composite MONTANA TROPICAL® population demonstrated through PCA showed a dispersion of the animals of more advanced generations according to PC1. ADMIXTURE results demonstrated that animals of ECG < 4.5 presented a different clustering when compared to earlier generations.

Principal components and ADMIXTURE clusters showed a weak relationship with the contribution ratio of the founder biological group. We expected a clearer relationship as some previous studies have used the results of PCA to calculate the proportion of each founder’s breed in a two-breed composite [25]. It seems that multiple-breeds crossbreeding resulted in a more complex genomic structure for the MONTANA TROPICAL® population.

After the development of a two-breed composite, at least 5 generations are required to form a new genomic profile [26,27]. The genomic structure of the MONTANA TROPICAL® population is much more complex due to the use of more than two breeds in its formation. Despite this, we also observed a differential genomic clustering for animals close to the fifth generation within the composite population.

The Tropical Adapted Taurine (A) biological group presented a higher proportion for late generations (ECG > 4.5). In contrast, Zebu (N) and British (B) biological groups showed a reduction in their proportions for late generations (ECG > 4.5). This is in line with the results described by Grigoletto et al. [28] where they demonstrated a switch from the use of the Zebu (N) biological group to Tropical Adapted Taurine (A) biological group in the formation of the MONTANA TROPICAL® population, which may be explained by the search for improved meat quality traits supposedly provided by taurine animals.

The results of the levels of homozygosity found in the MONTANA TROPICAL® population showed a slightly higher ROH value than those reported in another ROH study in the MONTANA TROPICAL® cattle [20]. However, the levels found in the current study are still considered low [20]. As expected, pedigree inbreeding (0.8%) underestimated inbreeding for the population when compared to FROH (2%), this is probably due to flaws in the information provided by the pedigree and the inability to capture information pertaining to Mendelian sampling [15,25]. Thus, it reinforces the importance of using genomic data to better understand the real population inbreeding scenario [29]. FROH is a genomic method that provides one of the most reliable measures of the true value of inbreeding in animal populations as it considers the past and recent relationship of individuals while being an accurate source of information. Subsequently, it is often recommended for calculating inbreeding in composite populations [30,31].

Signatures of selection

The region in BTAU 20 (35399405–40329703) was the consensus selected region for both methods (ROH and iHS). This signature of selection seems to be under a strong selection pressure, as it appeared only a few generations after the composite population was formed from the crossbreeding of contrasting breeds. Therefore, the genes in this region should be very important for animals to succeed in the tropical environment where they are raised.

This region has genes encompassing functions for milk, weight, feed intake, immune, and epithelial differentiation. The gene NIBPL was linked to the DNA repair process (i.e, recovery from damage caused by the UV component of sun light in mammals) [32]. Also, the NIPBL gene is a candidate gene for growth traits for cattle [33]. Other candidate genes, ILR7 and LIFR, have been identified to contribute to immune response [3436]. Furthermore, studies have found association between the LIFR and OSMR genes and feed intake in beef cattle [37]. The GDNF gene is related to important functions in skin homeostasis and hair cycle control [38]. PRLR is extensively described as important for milk traits in dairy cows [39,40], and polymorphisms in the PRLR are associated with calving rates in beef cattle [41].

This same region on chromosome 20 was described as the slick locus that has been previously described in other breeds such as Senepol and Creole cattle (42,43). The slick hair coat represents very short hair in cattle [1]. This phenotype is important to facilitate the ability to dissipate heat and to maintain a stable body temperature when an animal is exposed to heat stress conditions [42]. It is unknown which gene is responsible for the slick hear phenotype, however some studies suggested different candidate genes to define this phenotype such as GDNF [43], PRLR [42], RAI14 [44], SKP2 [45], and SPEF2 [45].

The slick hair coat was previously associated with the Senepol breed [42], which is one of the breeds identified in biological type A in the MONTANA TROPICAL® population composition [10]. Even after crossbreeding four different biological types, the composite population showed high homozygosity in this region related with important traits for environmental adaptation. The increasing homozygosity through ECG may be related to the high proportion of biological type A observed in late generations. Also, the MONTANA TROPICAL® selection index has a 70% weighting towards growth traits [28]. In other words, animals with the highest growth performance have a higher chance to be selected to contribute to the next generation. Individuals with a favorable interaction between genotype and environment have better productive performance. Consequently, the selection for growth traits could contribute to the selection in the candidate region identified in this work.

Conclusion

The genomic population structure of the Montana Tropical® population is complex and shows some relationships with the founders’ contribution ratio and the number of equivalent complete generations within the breed. Animals with more than 4.5 generations within the composite showed a different clustering pattern compared to previous generations. The selection pressure during crossbreeding and first generations of the composite breed left only one selected region on BTAU 20. This region harbors the slick locus and other important immune genes. Therefore, this seems to be a very important genomic region for tropical adaptation, which should be better characterized in further sequencing studies. These findings can be an opportunity for animal breeding and/or gene editing to incorporate existing genetic resources to face global climate change.

Methods

Animals

Genotypes (HD GGP Bovine 50K Neogen) from 1342 animals were used as the reference population for imputing the target population of 1893 genotypes using FImpute 3.0. The target population was genotyped with GGP LD BeadChip 35K Neogen (503 samples) and GGP LD BeadChip 30K Neogen (1390 samples). At the end, 3215 genotypes (HD GGP 50K Neogen, genome reference URS UCD 1.2) were used for the further analyses.

Using PLINK 1.9 [25] we applied MAF (>1%) and LD pruning (—indep-pairwise 50 5 0.5) filters before performing the Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and ADMIXTURE analysis. The dataset retained for these analyses had 40,634 SNP on 29 autosomal chromosomes.

For the signature of selection analyses, we kept the initial number of SNPs (51962) and did not use the MAF and LD pruning filtering, because they can cause biased ROH in medium density genotype data [42].

Pedigree-based measures

The pedigree file was evaluated using the optiSel package in the R v3.4.2 software [46]. The mean pedigree completeness index (PCI) was 0.75, which is the harmonic mean of the pedigree completeness of the parents estimated according to the method used by MacCluer et al. [47]. The harmonic means place a higher weight on less complete paternal pedigrees, i.e. when both parents are unknow the PCI is equal 0 [48].

Animals that presented breed proportion equals to 1 for any biological group on the NABC scale were considered ancestors. The equivalent complete generation (ECG) was calculated using the equation g=(1/2)n where g is the number of equivalent generations and n the number of generations separating the individual from each known ancestor ECG is defined as the sum of the proportion of known ancestors over all generations traced [49]. In cattle, normally animals mate across overlapping generations. As example, a 5th generation dam can be mated with a 3th generation sire. The ECG formula accounts for this overlapping and provide a result that demonstrate the relationship of the animal with the initial crossbreeding for composite formation[49]. In our case, we considered the animal born from a crossbreeding between founder’s breed that met Montana Tropical® requirements as a 1st generation. Therefore, we used ECG as indicator of how many generations each animal has inside the composite breed.

PCA

PLINK 1.9 (https://www.cog-genomics.org/plink/1.9/) [50] was used to perform Principal Component Analysis (PCA) aiming to verify stratification and genetic distance between individuals in the population [50]. Analyses were performed with up to 10 principal components, retaining only components with eigenvalues greater than 1, following Kaiser`s rule [51]. The individual eigenvectors were plotted along the different axes of a graph. The total variance explained by the main principal components was also estimated.

ADMIXTURE

Cluster analysis based on genotyping data was performed using the unsupervised maximum likelihood method implemented in the ADMIXTURE program version 1.3.0 [52]. K values (parameter that describes the number of subpopulations that make up the total population in a dataset provided as input) of 2, 3, and 4 were used to establish the clustering patterns in the population [53]. To determine the best K value for the population, K from 2 to 20 was tested. We were not able to identify the best K as the CV error showed a continuous decline in the range evaluated S3 File.

The data was organized by classes of equivalent complete generations (ECG<2.5, 2.5<ECG<4.5 and ECG>4.5). The outputs from K = 2 to 4 were plotted using the packages ggplot2 [54], forcats [55], ggthemes [56] and patchwork [57] in the R software.

Correlation, regression and graph analyzes between PCA results, ECG, ADMIXTURE and NABC composition of the pedigree were performed using the R software with Hmisc [58], MASS [59], ggplot2 [54] and corrplot [60] packages, respectively.

Runs of homozygosity

ROH islands were identified using the PLINK 1.9 (https://www.cog-genomics.org/plink/1.9/) [50] using the—homozyg function, using the following criteria [61]:

  1. a sliding window of 50 SNPs across the genome (—homozyg-windows-snp);

  2. a homozygous window overlap ratio of 0.05(—homozyg-windows-threshold);

  3. a minimum length to consider a homozygous segment of 1000 kb (—homozyg-kb);

  4. a maximum gap between consecutive homozygous SNPs of 1000 kb (—homozyg-gap);

  5. the density of one SNP per 100 kb (—homozyg-density)

  6. requirement to contain at least 20 SNPs (—homozyg-snp);

  7. requirement not to allow missing genotypes and not to allow heterozygotes;

Genomic inbreeding coefficient based on ROH (FROH) was calculated for each animal according to McQuillan et al. [19]:

FROH=j=1nLROHjLtotal

where LROHj is the length of ROHj, and Ltotal is the total size of the autosomes (used the estimated value in the ARS1.2 genome assembly of 2,715,853,792 bp).

The incidence of common ROH was calculated to each group of animals classified according to generation classes. The Shapiro-wilk test of the ROH incidence results were performed to check the normality of the data and the rationality of using gaussian distribution for defining the thresholds. The threshold that defining the top 1% and 0.1% of the frequency based on gaussian distribution for each equivalent generation class was determined. The homozygous regions above the frequency threshold of each generation class of equivalent generation (5% for all generations, 4.3% for ECG<2.5, 4.9% for 2.5<ECG<4.5 and 12% for ECG>4.5) were considered as putative selected regions.

According to the length of the ROH, it is possible to estimate the number of generations traced back to the common ancestor, which generates homozygosity in that region. ROH were classified into 4 categories (1 = more than 6 generations, 2 = between 6.5 and 4.5, 3 = between 4.5 and 2.5 and 4 = less than 2.5 generations) using the equation proposed by Čurik et al. [12]: E (LIBD−H | gcA) = 100/(2 gcA), where E (LIBD–H | gcA) is the expected length of a haplotype identical per offspring (IBD) (in centiMorgans–cM), and gcA is the number of generations of the common ancestor. The conversion of the recombination rate metric to physical distance was set to 1.28 cM per Mb, which is the average of the results from Arias et al. [62] and Weng et al. [63]. Thus, for example, a 1Mb<ROH<6.5Mb probably originated from a common ancestor more than 6 generations ago, the 6.5Mb<ROH<8.7 Mb originated from a common ancestor between 6 and 4.5, the 8.7Mb<ROH<15.6Mb between 4.5 and 2.5 generations ago, and ROH more than 15.6 Mb originated from a common ancestor less than 2.5 generations ago.

Integrated haplotype score

The iHS was performed for each autosomal SNP using the package rehh [64] in the software R. Before computing the analyzes the allele with the major frequency in the data was considered the ancestral allele.

iHS=ln(iHHAiHHD)Ep[ln(iHHAiHHD)]SDp[ln(iHHAiHHD)]

Were iHHA and iHHD represent the Integrated EHH score for ancestral and derived core alleles, respectively. Ep[ln(iHHAiHHD)] and SDp[ln(iHHAiHHD)] are the expectation and standard deviation in terms of frequency. Windows at the top 0.1% of the empirical distribution were considered candidate regions.

Genes, GO analysis and QTL identification

Genes in each selected region were searched in Genome Data Viewer (NCBI platform) using ARS-UCD1.3 (GCF_002263795.2). To identify traits related to genes located in each significant genomic region, a search was performed on the Animal Genome QTL Database (htt ps://www.animalgenome.org/cgi-bin/QTLdb/EC/index).

Gene Ontology (GO) biological process network was done using Cytoscape (National Resource for Network Biology, USA, Version 3.2.1) and ClueGo (Version 2.3.5) [65]. This approach is based on a unilateral hypergeometric method and Bonferroni correction. This application provides simultaneously analyzes of 1 or more sets of genes and searches for a functional Gene Ontology (GO) term or pathways that establish relationships among genes.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Statistical homozygosity runs (ROH) per animal.

Standard error (SE), mean (Mb), standard deviation (SD), min (Mb), max (Mb), SROH (mean length of genome covered by ROH Mb), NROH (mean number of ROH), LROH (mean length of ROH in Mb) and FROH (inbreeding coefficient).

(PDF)

pone.0301937.s001.pdf (181.1KB, pdf)
S2 Table. All regions that was found by iHS and ROH, through different equivalent complete generations (ECG) in the consensus region of BTAU 20.

(PDF)

pone.0301937.s002.pdf (14.1KB, pdf)
S1 File. Estimated iHS SNP in the MONTANA TROPICAL®.

(CSV)

pone.0301937.s003.csv (3.2MB, csv)
S2 File. Glue GO annotation clusters of region 35399405–40329703 in the BTAU.

(XLS)

pone.0301937.s004.xls (136.5KB, xls)
S3 File. CV error of different value of K.

(PDF)

pone.0301937.s005.pdf (378.4KB, pdf)
S4 File

(INI)

pone.0301937.s006.ini (244B, ini)
S1 Fig. Contribution of breed of each biological type in MONTANA TROPICAL® pedigree.

(TIF)

pone.0301937.s007.tif (161.2KB, tif)
S2 Fig. Result of regression analyses between genomic inbreeding (FROH) coefficient and pedigree inbreeding.

(TIF)

pone.0301937.s008.tif (152.1KB, tif)
S3 Fig. Result of regression analyses between the genomic inbreeding (FROH) coefficient and equivalent complete generations (ECG).

(TIF)

pone.0301937.s009.tif (597.9KB, tif)
S4 Fig. Genomic inbreeding based on runs of homozygosity (FROH) by equivalent generation classes and by ROH length classes.

The t-test comparison results are shown at the top (ns: not significant; *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.001; ****p< 0.0001).

(TIF)

pone.0301937.s010.tif (534.3KB, tif)
S5 Fig. Manhattan plot IHS and ROH through ECG.

A, C, E Manhattan plot of incidence of each SNP in the ROH across individuals through different ECGs. The blue line represents the top 0.1% threshold Manhattan plot of incidence of each SNP in the ROH across individuals. The orange line represents the threshold levels of top 0.1%. of Genome-wide distribution of selection signatures detected by iHS B, D, F through different ECGs.

(TIF)

pone.0301937.s011.tif (2.8MB, tif)
S6 Fig. Network genes BTAU 20 (35399405–40329703).

(TIF)

pone.0301937.s012.tif (1.7MB, tif)

Acknowledgments

For Animal Improvement and Biotechnology Group of the Faculty of Animal Science and Food Engineering (Pirassununga, São Paulo, Brazil) and MONTANA TROPICAL® breeders association for providing genotypic data and staff support.

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because it belongs to the International Association of Montana Breeders (AIC-MTN). Data can be made available by the Montana Breeders Association (contato@montana.org.br) to researchers who meet their criteria for access to confidential data.

Funding Statement

Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia Goiano (IF Goiano) and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript only in the financial support and the infrastructure.

References

  • 1.Olson TA, Lucena C, Chase CC Jr, Hammond AC. Evidence of a major gene influencing hair length and heat tolerance in Bos taurus cattle1,2,3. J Anim Sci. 2003.1;81(1):80–90. doi: 10.2527/2003.81180x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.West JW. Effects of Heat-Stress on Production in Dairy Cattle. J Dairy Sci. 2003.1;86(6):2131–44. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73803-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Nardone A, Ronchi B, Lacetera N, Ranieri MS, Bernabucci U. Effects of climate changes on animal production and sustainability of livestock systems. Livest Sci. 2010. 1;130(1):57–69. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hayes BJ, Chamberlain AJ, Maceachern S, Savin K, McPartlan H, MacLeod I, et al. A genome map of divergent artificial selection between Bos taurus dairy cattle and Bos taurus beef cattle. Anim Genet. 2009;40(2):176–84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2008.01815.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.The evolution of tropical adaptation: comparing taurine and zebu cattle—Chan—2010—Animal Genetics—Wiley Online Library. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 6.Kava R, Peripolli E, Berton MP, Lemos M, Lobo RB, Stafuzza NB, et al. Genome-wide structural variations in Brazilian Senepol cattle, a tropically adapted taurine breed. Livest Sci. 2021. 1;253:104708. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2021;104708. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kooverjee BB, Soma P, Van Der Nest MA, Scholtz MM, Neser FWC. Selection Signatures in South African Nguni and Bonsmara Cattle Populations Reveal Genes Relating to Environmental Adaptation. Front Genet. 2022;13 doi: 10.3389/fgene.2022.909012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Silva AM da, Alencar MM de, Regitano LC de A, Oliveira MC de S, Barioni Júnior W. Artificial infestation of Boophilus microplus in beef cattle heifers of four genetic groups. Genet Mol Biol. 2007;30:1150–5. doi: 10.1590/S1415-47572007000600020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kim K, Kwon T, Dessie T, Yoo D, Mwai OA, Jang J, et al. The mosaic genome of indigenous African cattle as a unique genetic resource for African pastoralism. Nat Genet. 202;52(10):1099–110. doi: 10.1038/s41588-020-0694-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ferraz JBS, Eler JP, Golden BL. A formação do composto Montana Tropical. Rev Bras Reprodução Anim. 1999;23(2):115–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Santana ML, Eler JP, Cardoso FF, Albuquerque LG, Ferraz JBS. Phenotypic plasticity of composite beef cattle performance using reaction norms model with unknown covariate. animal. 2013;7(2):202–10. doi: 10.1017/S1751731112001711 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Grigoletto L, Ferraz JBS, Oliveira HR, Eler JP, Bussiman FO, Abreu Silva BC, et al. Genetic Architecture of Carcass and Meat Quality Traits in Montana Tropical® Composite Beef Cattle. Front Genet [Internet]. 2020;11. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00123 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Grigoletto L, Brito LF, Mattos EC, Eler JP, Bussiman FO, Silva B da CA, et al. Genome-wide associations and detection of candidate genes for direct and maternal genetic effects influencing growth traits in the Montana Tropical® Composite population. Livest Sci. 2019;1;229:64–76. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2019.09.013 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Reist-Marti SB, Simianer H, Gibson J, Hanotte O, Rege JEO. Weitzman’s Approach and Conservation of Breed Diversity: an Application to African Cattle Breeds. Conserv Biol. 2003;17(5):1299–311. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.01587.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kuehn LA, Keele JW, Bennett GL, McDaneld TG, Smith TPL, Snelling WM, et al. Predicting breed composition using breed frequencies of 50,000 markers from the US Meat Animal Research Center 2,000 Bull Project1,2. J Anim Sci. 2011;1;89(6):1742–50. doi: 10.2527/jas.2010-3530 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ferencakovic M, Hamzic E, Gredler B, Curik I, Sölkner J. Runs of Homozygosity Reveal Genome-wide Autozygosity in the Austrian Fleckvieh Cattle. Agric Conspec Sci. 2011;4;76(4):325–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Purfield DC, Berry DP, McParland S, Bradley DG. Runs of homozygosity and population history in cattle. BMC Genet. 2012;14;13(1):70. doi: 10.1186/1471-2156-13-70 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Curik I, Ferenčaković M, Sölkner J. Inbreeding and runs of homozygosity: A possible solution to an old problem. Livest Sci. 2014;1;166:26–34. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2014.05.034 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.McQuillan R, Leutenegger AL, Abdel-Rahman R, Franklin CS, Pericic M, Barac-Lauc L, et al. Runs of Homozygosity in European Populations. Am J Hum Genet. 2008;83(3):359–72. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2008.08.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Peripolli E, Stafuzza NB, Munari DP, Lima ALF, Irgang R, Machado MA, et al. Assessment of runs of homozygosity islands and estimates of genomic inbreeding in Gyr (Bos indicus) dairy cattle. BMC Genomics. 2018;9;19(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s12864-017-4365-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Voight BF, Kudaravalli S, Wen X, Pritchard JK. A Map of Recent Positive Selection in the Human Genome. PLOS Biol. 2006;7;4(3):e72. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0040072 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ben-Jemaa S, Senczuk G, Ciani E, Ciampolini R, Catillo G, Boussaha M, et al. Genome-Wide Analysis Reveals Selection Signatures Involved in Meat Traits and Local Adaptation in Semi-Feral Maremmana Cattle. Front Genet. 2021;12. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2021.675569 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bhardwaj S, Singh S, Ganguly I, Bhatia AK, Bharti VK, Dixit SP. Genome-wide diversity analysis for signatures of selection of Bos indicus adaptability under extreme agro-climatic conditions of temperate and tropical ecosystems. Anim Gene. 2021;1;20:200115. doi: 10.1016/j.angen.2021.200115 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Liu D, Chen Z, Zhao W, Guo L, Sun H, Zhu K, et al. Genome-wide selection signatures detection in Shanghai Holstein cattle population identified genes related to adaption, health and reproduction traits. BMC Genomics. 2021;15;22(1):747. doi: 10.1186/s12864-021-08042-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gobena M, Elzo MA, Mateescu RG. Population Structure and Genomic Breed Composition in an Angus–Brahman Crossbred Cattle Population. Front Genet. 2018 [cited 2023;9. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2018.00090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Paim T do P, Hay EHA, Wilson C, Thomas MG, Kuehn LA, Paiva SR, et al. Genomic Breed Composition of Selection Signatures in Brangus Beef Cattle. Front Genet [Internet]. 2020;11. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2020.00710 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hay EH, Toghiani S, Roberts AJ, Paim T, Kuehn LA, Blackburn HD. Genetic architecture of a composite beef cattle population. J Anim Sci. 2022;1;100(9):skac230. doi: 10.1093/jas/skac230 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Grigoletto L. Genomic studies in Montana Tropical Composite cattle [Internet] [text]. Universidade de São Paulo; 2020. doi: 10.11606/T.74.2020.tde-13042021-153436 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Caivio-Nasner S, López-Herrera A, González-Herrera LG, Rincón JC. Diversity analysis, runs of homozygosity and genomic inbreeding reveal recent selection in Blanco Orejinegro cattle. J Anim Breed Genet. 2021;138(5):613–27. doi: 10.1111/jbg.12549 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Stella A, Ajmone-Marsan P, Lazzari B, Boettcher P. Identification of Selection Signatures in Cattle Breeds Selected for Dairy Production. Genetics. 2010; 1;185(4):1451–61. doi: 10.1534/genetics.110.116111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Reverter A, Porto-Neto LR, Fortes MRS, Kasarapu P, de Cara MAR, Burrow HM, et al. Genomic inbreeding depression for climatic adaptation of tropical beef cattle1. J Anim Sci. 2017.1;95(9):3809–21. doi: 10.2527/jas.2017.1643 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Bot C, Pfeiffer A, Giordano F, Manjeera DE, Dantuma NP, Ström L. Independent mechanisms recruit the cohesin loader protein NIPBL to sites of DNA damage. J Cell Sci. 2017;15;130(6):1134–46. doi: 10.1242/jcs.197236 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wang S, Raza SHA, Zhang K, Mei C, Alamoudi MO, Aloufi BH, et al. Selection signatures of Qinchuan cattle based on whole-genome sequences. Anim Biotechnol. 2022;13;0(0):1–9. doi: 10.1080/10495398.2022.2033252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Guimond M, Veenstra RG, Grindler DJ, Zhang H, Cui Y, Murphy RD, et al. Interleukin 7 signaling in dendritic cells regulates the homeostatic proliferation and niche size of CD4+ T cells. Nat Immunol. 2009;10(2):149–57. doi: 10.1038/ni.1695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Zhao Y, Xu L, Wang X, Niu S, Chen H, Li C. A novel prognostic mRNA/miRNA signature for esophageal cancer and its immune landscape in cancer progression. Mol Oncol. 2021;15(4):1088–109. doi: 10.1002/1878-0261.12902 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wang X, Chang S, Wang T, Wu R, Huang Z, Sun J, et al. IL7R Is Correlated With Immune Cell Infiltration in the Tumor Microenvironment of Lung Adenocarcinoma. Front Pharmacol [Internet]. 2022;13. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.857289 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Karisa B, Moore S, Plastow G. Analysis of biological networks and biological pathways associated with residual feed intake in beef cattle. Anim Sci J. 2014;85(4):374–87. doi: 10.1111/asj.12159 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Adly MA, Assaf HA, Pertile P, Hussein MR, Paus R. Expression patterns of the glial cell line–derived neurotrophic factor, neurturin, their cognate receptors GFRα-1, GFRα-2, and a common signal transduction element c-Ret in the human skin hair follicles. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008;1;58(2):238–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2007.10.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zhang J, Zan L, Fang P, Zhang F, Shen G, Tian W. Genetic variation of PRLR gene and association with milk performance traits in dairy cattle. Can J Anim Sci. 2008;88(1):33–9. doi: 10.4141/CJAS07052 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Viitala S, Szyda J, Blott S, Schulman N, Lidauer M, Mäki-Tanila A, et al. The Role of the Bovine Growth Hormone Receptor and Prolactin Receptor Genes in Milk, Fat and Protein Production in Finnish Ayrshire Dairy Cattle. Genetics. 2006;1;173(4):2151–64. doi: 10.1534/genetics.105.046730 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Meyer L, Powell J, Kutz B, Looper M, Brown AH, Rosenkrans C. Associations of single nucleotide polymorphisms in the bovine prolactin gene with phenotypic traits in beef cattle. Agri Gene. 2017; 1;5:7–11. doi: 10.1016/j.aggene.2017.06.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Mariasegaram M, Chase CC Jr, Chaparro JX, Olson TA, Brenneman RA, Niedz RP. The slick hair coat locus maps to chromosome 20 in Senepol-derived cattle. Anim Genet. 2007;38(1):54–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2007.01560.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Pitt D, Bruford MW, Barbato M, Orozco-terWengel P, Martínez R, Sevane N. Demography and rapid local adaptation shape Creole cattle genome diversity in the tropics. Evol Appl. 2019;12(1):105–22. doi: 10.1111/eva.12641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Flori L, Gonzatti MI, Thevenon S, Chantal I, Pinto J, Berthier D, et al. A Quasi-Exclusive European Ancestry in the Senepol Tropical Cattle Breed Highlights the Importance of the slick Locus in Tropical Adaptation. PLOS ONE. 2012; 9;7(5):e36133. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Huson HJ, Kim ES, Godfrey RW, Olson TA, McClure MC, Chase CC, et al. Genome-wide association study and ancestral origins of the slick-hair coat in tropically adapted cattle. Front Genet. 2014 [cited 2023;7;5. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.R Core Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria;2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.MacCluer JW, Boyce AJ, Dyke B, Weitkamp LR, Pfenning DW, Parsons CJ. Inbreeding and pedigree structure in Standardbred horses. J Hered. 1983; 1;74(6):394–9. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a109824 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kasap A, Ramljak J, Špehar M. Estimation of Population-Specific Genetic Parameters Important for Long-Term Optimum Contribution Selection—Case Study on a Dairy Istrian Sheep Breed. Animals. 2021; 11(8): 2356. doi: 10.3390/ani11082356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Welsh CS, Stewart TS, Schwab C, Blackburn HD. Pedigree analysis of 5 swine breeds in the United States and the implications for genetic conservation1. J Anim Sci. 2010;1;88(5):1610–8. doi: 10.2527/jas.2009-2537 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Chang CC, Chow CC, Tellier LC, Vattikuti S, Purcell SM, Lee JJ. Second-generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. GigaScience. 2015;1;4(1):s13742-015-0047–8. doi: 10.1186/s13742-015-0047-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Kaiser H. F. Coefficient alpha for a principal component and the Kaiser-Guttman rule. Psychol Rep. 1991;68 (3):855–858. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Alexander DH, Novembre J, Lange K. Fast model-based estimation of ancestry in unrelated individuals. Genome Res. 2009;1;19(9):1655–64. doi: 10.1101/gr.094052.109 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ahmad SF, Panigrahi M, Chhotaray S, Pal D, Parida S, Bhushan B, et al. Revelation of genomic breed composition in a crossbred cattle of India with the help of Bovine50 K BeadChip. Genomics. 2020. Mar 1;112(2):1531–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2019.08.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wickham H. ggplot2 [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Wickham H, RStudio. forcats: Tools for Working with Categorical Variables (Factors). 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Arnold JB, Daroczi G, Werth B, Weitzner B, Kunst J, Auguie B, et al. ggthemes: Extra Themes, Scales and Geoms for “ggplot2”. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Pedersen TL. patchwork: The Composer of Plots. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Harrell FE Jr, Dupont C. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Venables WN. Modern applied statistics with S. 4th ed. New York: Springer; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Wei T, Simko V, Levy M, Xie Y, Jin Y, Zemla J, et al. corrplot: Visualization of a Correlation Matrix. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Saravanan KA, Panigrahi M, Kumar H, Parida S, Bhushan B, Gaur GK, et al. Genome-wide assessment of genetic diversity, linkage disequilibrium and haplotype block structure in Tharparkar cattle breed of India. Anim Biotechnol. 2022;1;33(2):297–311. doi: 10.1080/10495398.2020.1796696 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Arias JA, Keehan M, Fisher P, Coppieters W, Spelman R. A high density linkage map of the bovine genome. BMC Genet. 2009;24;10(1):18. doi: 10.1186/1471-2156-10-18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Weng ZQ, Saatchi M, Schnabel RD, Taylor JF, Garrick DJ. Recombination locations and rates in beef cattle assessed from parent-offspring pairs. Genet Sel Evol.29;46(1):34. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-46-34 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Gautier M, Klassmann A, Vitalis R. rehh 2.0: a reimplementation of the R package rehh to detect positive selection from haplotype structure. Mol Ecol Resour. 2017;17(1):78–90. doi: 10.1111/1755-0998.12634 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Li M, Li D, Tang Y, Wu F, Wang J. CytoCluster: A Cytoscape Plugin for Cluster Analysis and Visualization of Biological Networks. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(9):1880. doi: 10.3390/ijms18091880 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

31 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-33836Selective signatures in composite Montana tropical® beef cattle reveal potential genomic regions for tropical adaptationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Santos,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 15 2023 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,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

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 note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "CNPq"

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[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: Yes

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: No

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: Please consider carefully all comments below:

- I want to thank you for placing figures and tables within the text! (and not at the end of it)

- but please add line numbers!!

- English: overall not too bad, but check some typos and especially the many poorly constructed sentences

- Methods must be described more precisely, with less ambiguity and providing as much as possible the exact calculations that you used

Background

----------

P10: changing climate scenario

P10: composed of

P11: arose

P11: succeeded

P11: do you have a reference/link for the registered Montana Tropical cattle? If it's a trademark/brand, please always capitalize it (including in the title)

P11: composite breed

P11: based on THE crossbreeding OF four

P11: "has growth traits as 70% of their selection index" please rephrase --> growth traits account for 70% of their selection index

P12: I guess you refer to pedigree errors (you can find something on this in the literature, e.g. Leroy et al. 2012 Animal Genetics)

P12: history of population, not of pop structure

P12: rephrase to --> The population frequency of ROH can be used as a tool to identify genomic regions under selection (i.e. signatures of selection)

P12: Another method to detect signals of recent selection is the integrated haplotype score ...

P12: are you sure that iHS only detects recent seelction?

Methods

-------

P27: "At the end, it was used 3215 genotypes (HD GGP 50K Neogen, genome reference URS UCD 1.2) for the further analyses presented here.": wrongly written (it was used?), please rewrite

P27: before performing

P28: signatures of selection

P28: , according

P28: what is the completeness value? How is it calculated?

P28: breed proportion

P28: what is the purpose of the ECG?

P28: "standardized variance relationship matrix"? What is this? Usually, PCA is performed on the matrix of genotypes, or on the matrix of genetic relationships calculated from the genotypes (in this latter case, we talk more precisely of PCoA: principal coordinates analysis)

P28: how did you choose the number 10? (I guess that you used the first 10 PCs ordered by decreasing eigenvalues or transformations thereof)

P29: to determine K, besides the CV error you can look also at the number of iterations needed to converge (you can see an example and explanation in rice populations from Biscarini et al. 2016, Plos One)

P30: density of ONE SNP per 100 kb

P30:LROH, LAUTO: ROH and AUTO should be suffixes here

P30: "The incidence of common ROH was transformed to generation class frequency by dividing by the number of animals from each generation class in the analysis." This is not clear, please explain better or add the calculations that you performed (preferred option)

P30: normality test of what? Which test?

P30: top 0.1% of observations in terms of what? Not clear

P31: what was the cM --> Mb conversion rate that you used? 1cM = 1Mb?

P31: GO analysis

Reviewer #2: 1. Some information (for example, the description of calculated parameters, and used software) in the Results section should be moved to Materials and Methods.

2. The captions for Figure 2 are hardly readable.

3. The authors stated that FROH showed a positive correlation with inbreeding coefficient based on pedigree. I recommend providing these calculations in the Table (or as Supplementary Table). Was the correlation significant?

4. Figure 5 should be provided in a better quality.

5. The photograph of Montana Tropical cattle wil attract attention of potential readers, who are not familiar with this breed.

**********

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: No

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. 2024 Apr 25;19(4):e0301937. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301937.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Dec 2023

We appreciate the reviewer’s considerations, and we address all questions.

Reviewer #1:

Please consider carefully all comments below:

- I want to thank you for placing figures and tables within the text! (and not at the end of it)

- but please add line numbers!!

- English: overall not too bad, but check some typos and especially the many poorly constructed sentences

- Methods must be described more precisely, with less ambiguity and providing as much as possible the exact calculations that you used

We added line numbers and performed a carefully English check. Moreover, we revised the description of methods used.

Background

----------

P10: changing climate scenario – done

P10: composed of – done

P11: arose - done

P11: succeeded - done

P11: do you have a reference/link for the registered Montana Tropical cattle? If it's a trademark/brand, please always capitalize it (including in the title) – we added a citation of the Association website in line 52

P11: composite breed – done

P11: based on THE crossbreeding OF four – done.

P11: "has growth traits as 70% of their selection index" please rephrase --> growth traits account for 70% of their selection index – done.

P12: I guess you refer to pedigree errors (you can find something on this in the literature, e.g. Leroy et al. 2012 Animal Genetics) – done, It was a missing word before the errors.

P12: history of population, not of pop structure – done.

P12: rephrase to --> The population frequency of ROH can be used as a tool to identify genomic regions under selection (i.e. signatures of selection) - done

P12: Another method to detect signals of recent selection is the integrated haplotype score ... – done

P12: are you sure that iHS only detects recent seelction?

According to the Voight et al. (2006), iHS method detect more recent signal of selection compared to other methods available. To avoid any misinterpretation, we removed “recent” from the statement. L:84

Voight, B. F., Kudaravalli, S., Wen, X., & Pritchard, J. K. (2006). A map of recent positive selection in the human genome. PLoS biology, 4(3), e72.

Methods

-------

P27: "At the end, it was used 3215 genotypes (HD GGP 50K Neogen, genome reference URS UCD 1.2) for the further analyses presented here.": wrongly written (it was used?), please rewrite – done

P27: before performing – done

P28: signatures of selection – done

P28: , according – done

P28: what is the completeness value? How is it calculated?

The completeness value is an index of pedigree completeness, which is the harmonic mean of the pedigree completeness of the parents. The relevant parameter to identify individuals with insufficient pedigree information to estimate inbreeding, however, is the PCI. This is because inbreeding can be detected only if both maternal and paternal ancestries are known. The harmonic mean ensures that the less complete paternal pedigree is weighted more heavily, so the PCI equals zero when either parent is unknown. Inbreeding coefficients can be valid despite small PCIs if the most recent founders were indeed unrelated, e.g. because they were from other breeds. L:373

MacCluer JW, Boyce AJ, Dyke B, Weitkamp LR, Pfenning DW, Parsons CJ. Inbreeding and pedigree structure in Standardbred horses. J Hered. 1983; 1;74(6):394–9. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a109824.

P28: breed proportion – done

P28: what is the purpose of the ECG?

In the bovine mating system normally occurs the overlapping of generations. As example, a 7th generation dam can be mated with a 4th generation sire. The ECG formula accounts for this overlapping and provide a result that demonstrate the relationship of the animal with the initial crossbreeding for composite formation. In our case, we considered the animal born from a crossbreeding between founder’s breed that meet Montana requirements as a 1st generation. Therefore, we used ECG as indicator of how many generations each animal has inside the composite breed.

P28: "standardized variance relationship matrix"? What is this? Usually, PCA is performed on the matrix of genotypes, or on the matrix of genetic relationships calculated from the genotypes (in this latter case, we talk more precisely of PCoA: principal coordinates analysis)

We performed the PCA analysis using the genetic relationship matrix. This analysis as done using PLINK default conditions. PLINK manual (https://www.cog-genomics.org/plink/1.9/strat#pca) indicates that the command “--pca” calculate the principal components of the variance-standardized relationship matrix”. We only changed the number of retained PC according to the Kaiser’s rule. L: 385

P28: how did you choose the number 10? (I guess that you used the first 10 PCs ordered by decreasing eigenvalues or transformations thereof)

We followed Kaiser’s rule, thus we retained the number of components whose eigenvalues were greater than 1. We added this information in the text. L:388

Kaiser, H. F. (1991). Coefficient alpha for a principal component and the Kaiser-Guttman rule. Psychological reports, 68(3), 855-858.

P29: to determine K, besides the CV error you can look also at the number of iterations needed to converge (you can see an example and explanation in rice populations from Biscarini et al. 2016, Plos One)

We appreciate your suggestion. We checked the number of iterations to convergence in each run, however we still not been able to determine the best K. The minimal number of iterations was 23.3 (K=2) and the maximum was 50.7 with K = 13, then the number of iterations decreased, resulting in 40.1 iterations to converge with K=20. As mentioned by Biscarini et al. 2016 and Alexander et al. 2019, we expected that the number of iterations needed rapidly increases when the data start to support poorly the tested number of clusters (K).

P30: density of ONE SNP per 100 kb – done

P30: LROH, LAUTO: ROH and AUTO should be suffixes here – done

P30: "The incidence of common ROH was transformed to generation class frequency by dividing by the number of animals from each generation class in the analysis." This is not clear, please explain better or add the calculations that you performed (preferred option) L:429

The animals were grouped according to generation classes - all generations, ECG<2.5, 2.5<ECG<4.5 and ECG>4.5. The incidence of common ROH was calculated to each one of these groups.

P30: normality test of what? Which test? Shapiro-wilk test of normality of the ROH results. L:430

P30: top 0.1% of observations in terms of what? Not clear

We calculate the threshold as top 0.1% of ROH frequency based on a gaussian distribution. In termers of the ROH frequency, this can be observed in the Manhattan plot whose the orange line represents the threshold levels of top 0.1 %.

P31: what was the cM --> Mb conversion rate that you used? 1cM = 1Mb?

We calculated the average of the results obtained by Arias et al. (2009) and Weng et al. (2014) to obtain the conversion rate as stated in line 444. Both studies performed a detailed analysis of the bovine recombination map.

P31: GO analysis - done

Reviewer #2:

1.Some information (for example, the description of calculated parameters, and used software) in the Results section should be moved to Materials and Methods.

We removed most of these descriptions, however some of them we believed that it is necessary to explain the basic of what we have done to make the results understandable, as the material and methods is presented at the end of the paper.

2. The captions for Figure 2 are hardly readable. – We remade the plot increasing the size of the captions to get a more readable figure.

3.The authors stated that FROH showed a positive correlation with inbreeding coefficient based on pedigree. I recommend providing these calculations in the Table (or as Supplementary Table). Was the correlation significant?

Yes, it was significant. We added these results as Supplementary Table.

4. Figure 5 should be provided in a better quality.

We tried our best to provide a better quality image.

5.The photograph of Montana Tropical cattle will attract attention of potential readers, who are not familiar with this breed – We added a link to Breeder’s Association website and a photo of the animals in the text.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

pone.0301937.s013.pdf (152.6KB, pdf)

Decision Letter 1

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

24 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-33836R1Selective signatures in composite Montana tropical® beef cattle reveal potential genomic regions for tropical adaptationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Santos,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 09 2024 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,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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: No

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: Abstract

--------

- "Genomic regions related to tropical adaptability are OF paramount IMPORTANCE for animal breeding nowadays, especially ... "

- "Moreover, the genomic architecture of these traits MAY BE very RELEVANT FOR breeding programs." Why do you think that the genomic architecture of these traits is relevant for breeding programmes: pelase explain (also in the text of the Abstract)

- " ... were used to: i) characterize the population structure: ii) identify signatures of selection with complementary approaches, i.e. Integrated Haplotype Score (iHS) and Runs of Homozygosity (ROH); and iii) understand genes and traits related to selected region"

Methods

-------

- I appreciated your response to my comments on "completeness value" and "ECG": please add part of those replies to the text of the manuscript

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed comment raised during review process.

Figure 1 is missing in the revised manuscript. Please check it before the publication.

All gene names should be in italics. Check it.

**********

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: No

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. 2024 Apr 25;19(4):e0301937. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301937.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


26 Feb 2024

We appreciate the reviewer’s considerations, and we address all questions. Hereinafter, we indicate the changes made point by point in red.

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

Abstract

--------

- "Genomic regions related to tropical adaptability are OF paramount IMPORTANCE for animal breeding nowadays, especially ... " – Done

- "Moreover, the genomic architecture of these traits MAY BE very RELEVANT FOR breeding programs." Why do you think that the genomic architecture of these traits is relevant for breeding programmes: pelase explain (also in the text of the Abstract)

To know the genetic architecture of this regions is important for geneticists and breeding programs so they can make more informed decisions when selecting animals with objectives related to tropical adaptation trough hybridization for example.

We also complement the text in the abstract.

- " ... were used to: i) characterize the population structure: ii) identify signatures of selection with complementary approaches, i.e. Integrated Haplotype Score (iHS) and Runs of Homozygosity (ROH); and iii) understand genes and traits related to selected region" – Done

Methods

-------

- I appreciated your response to my comments on "completeness value" and "ECG": please add part of those replies to the text of the manuscript

-We added part of the explanations in the text, for completeness of the pedigree L374 – L377 and for ECG L383 – L389.

Reviewer #2:

The authors addressed comment raised during review process.

Figure 1 is missing in the revised manuscript. Please check it before the publication. - We appreciate your comment, but in our last reviewed manuscript, we choose the option to attach the figures separately in the Editorial Manager page.

All gene names should be in italics. Check it. - Done

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_rewiers.docx

pone.0301937.s014.docx (13.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

4 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-33836R2Selective signatures in composite Montana tropical® beef cattle reveal potential genomic regions for tropical adaptationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Santos,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 18 2024 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,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[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: (No Response)

**********

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: No

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: Please carefully check the English. There are some sentences which are poorly written: I provide a couple of examples below, but there are more.

L392-393: "With the harmonic mean the less complete paternal pedigree is weighted more heavily, i.e. when both parents are unknow the PCI is equal 0" This sentence is not well written: try something like "The harmonic means place a higher weight on less complete paternal pedigrees, i.e. ... "

L399-400: "In the bovine mating system normally occurs the overlapping of generations": again, not well written. Try "In cattle, normally animals mate across overlapping generations"

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: No

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. 2024 Apr 25;19(4):e0301937. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301937.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


16 Mar 2024

We appreciate the reviewer's considerations. We have addressed the changes and also conducted an English review of the document. We have indicated the changes made point by point in red.

Reviewer #1:

Please carefully check the English. There are some sentences which are poorly written: I provide a couple of examples below, but there are more.

L392-393: "With the harmonic mean the less complete paternal pedigree is weighted more heavily, i.e. when both parents are unknow the PCI is equal 0" This sentence is not well written: try something like "The harmonic means place a higher weight on less complete paternal pedigrees, i.e. ... "

Done. We appreciate the suggestion.

L399-400: "In the bovine mating system normally occurs the overlapping of generations": again, not well written. Try "In cattle, normally animals mate across overlapping generations"

Done.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviwersV3.docx

pone.0301937.s015.docx (12.9KB, docx)

Decision Letter 3

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

25 Mar 2024

Selective signatures in composite Montana tropical® beef cattle reveal potential genomic regions for tropical adaptation

PONE-D-23-33836R3

Dear Dr. Santos,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Tzen-Yuh Chiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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: No

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: I am satisfied with the answers to my previous comments.

Please though, do check carefully the English in which your article is written, as this is important for the quality of your publication.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Statistical homozygosity runs (ROH) per animal.

    Standard error (SE), mean (Mb), standard deviation (SD), min (Mb), max (Mb), SROH (mean length of genome covered by ROH Mb), NROH (mean number of ROH), LROH (mean length of ROH in Mb) and FROH (inbreeding coefficient).

    (PDF)

    pone.0301937.s001.pdf (181.1KB, pdf)
    S2 Table. All regions that was found by iHS and ROH, through different equivalent complete generations (ECG) in the consensus region of BTAU 20.

    (PDF)

    pone.0301937.s002.pdf (14.1KB, pdf)
    S1 File. Estimated iHS SNP in the MONTANA TROPICAL®.

    (CSV)

    pone.0301937.s003.csv (3.2MB, csv)
    S2 File. Glue GO annotation clusters of region 35399405–40329703 in the BTAU.

    (XLS)

    pone.0301937.s004.xls (136.5KB, xls)
    S3 File. CV error of different value of K.

    (PDF)

    pone.0301937.s005.pdf (378.4KB, pdf)
    S4 File

    (INI)

    pone.0301937.s006.ini (244B, ini)
    S1 Fig. Contribution of breed of each biological type in MONTANA TROPICAL® pedigree.

    (TIF)

    pone.0301937.s007.tif (161.2KB, tif)
    S2 Fig. Result of regression analyses between genomic inbreeding (FROH) coefficient and pedigree inbreeding.

    (TIF)

    pone.0301937.s008.tif (152.1KB, tif)
    S3 Fig. Result of regression analyses between the genomic inbreeding (FROH) coefficient and equivalent complete generations (ECG).

    (TIF)

    pone.0301937.s009.tif (597.9KB, tif)
    S4 Fig. Genomic inbreeding based on runs of homozygosity (FROH) by equivalent generation classes and by ROH length classes.

    The t-test comparison results are shown at the top (ns: not significant; *p< 0.05; **p< 0.01; ***p< 0.001; ****p< 0.0001).

    (TIF)

    pone.0301937.s010.tif (534.3KB, tif)
    S5 Fig. Manhattan plot IHS and ROH through ECG.

    A, C, E Manhattan plot of incidence of each SNP in the ROH across individuals through different ECGs. The blue line represents the top 0.1% threshold Manhattan plot of incidence of each SNP in the ROH across individuals. The orange line represents the threshold levels of top 0.1%. of Genome-wide distribution of selection signatures detected by iHS B, D, F through different ECGs.

    (TIF)

    pone.0301937.s011.tif (2.8MB, tif)
    S6 Fig. Network genes BTAU 20 (35399405–40329703).

    (TIF)

    pone.0301937.s012.tif (1.7MB, tif)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    pone.0301937.s013.pdf (152.6KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_rewiers.docx

    pone.0301937.s014.docx (13.9KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviwersV3.docx

    pone.0301937.s015.docx (12.9KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because it belongs to the International Association of Montana Breeders (AIC-MTN). Data can be made available by the Montana Breeders Association (contato@montana.org.br) to researchers who meet their criteria for access to confidential data.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES