Skip to main content
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2020 Jan 3;51(2):330–335. doi: 10.1111/age.12895

Genome‐wide association study to identify genetic loci associated with gastrointestinal nematode resistance in Katahdin sheep

G M Becker 1, K M Davenport 1, J M Burke 2, R M Lewis 3, J E Miller 4, J L M Morgan 5, D R Notter 6, B M Murdoch 1,
PMCID: PMC7064973  PMID: 31900974

Summary

Resistance to gastrointestinal nematodes has previously been shown to be a moderately heritable trait in some breeds of sheep, but the mechanisms of resistance are not well understood. Selection for resistance currently relies upon faecal egg counts (FEC), blood packed cell volumes and FAMACHA visual indicator scores of anaemia. Identifying genomic markers associated with disease resistance would potentially improve the selection process and provide a more reliable means of classifying and understanding the biology behind resistant and susceptible sheep. A GWAS was conducted to identify possible genetic loci associated with resistance to Haemonchus contortus in Katahdin sheep. Forty animals were selected from the top and bottom 10% of estimated breeding values for FEC from a total pool of 641 sires and ram lambs. Samples were genotyped using Applied Biosystems™ Axiom™ Ovine Genotyping Array (50K) consisting of 51 572 SNPs. Following quality control, 46 268 SNPs were included in subsequent analyses. Analyses were conducted using a linear regression model in plink v1.90 and a single‐locus mixed model in snp and variation suite. Genome‐wide significance was determined by a Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. Using linear regression, loci on chromosomes 2, 3, 16, 23 and 24 were significantly associated at the genome level with FEC estimated breeding values, and we identified a region on chromosome 2 that was significant using both statistical analyses. We suggest a potential role for the gene DIS3L2 for gastrointestinal nematode resistance in Katahdin sheep, although further research is needed to validate these findings.

Keywords: GWAS, parasite resistance, sheep


Of the gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN) that infect small ruminants, the abomasal parasite Haemonchus contortus arguably represents the greatest economic concern. H. contortus possesses the highest prevalence of anthelmintic resistance and is the most abundant GIN (Fleming et al. 2006). Female worms can produce 5000–15 000 eggs daily, resulting in rapid accumulation of infective larvae on pastures (Emery et al. 2016). Fourth‐stage larvae and adult nematodes consume blood through the hosts’ abomasal mucosa (Emery et al. 2016). Individual worms can remove up to 30 µl of blood per day, which can cause fatal anaemia in young or immunocompromised animals (Zajac 2006; Emery et al. 2016). H. contortus infections account for significant production losses, and concerns regarding treatment costs and anthelmintic resistance have encouraged the development of other methods of GIN control (Saddiqi et al. 2011). Current selection strategies use phenotypic markers such as faecal egg count (FEC), antibody assays, packed cell volume (PCV) and FAMACHA visual anaemia score to identify animals that are more resistant to H. contortus (Burke & Miller, 2008; Shaw et al. 2012; Aguerre et al. 2018). Phenotypic selection can be labour intensive and costly, and accuracy of selection depends upon many factors that may be difficult to control, such as variations in natural helminth infection and environmental load depending upon the season (Woolaston & Baker, 1996; Uriarte et al. 2003; Jackson & Miller, 2006).

It is hypothesised that inherited GIN resistance is polygenic and related to the immune system (Saddiqi et al. 2011; Atlija et al. 2016; Aguerre et al. 2018). Protection against GIN has been associated with the T helper 2 (Th2) immune response (Moncada et al. 2003) characterised by secretion of interleukin‐10 (IL‐10) and other cytokines which promote recruitment of eosinophils, basophils and mast cells to control infection and mediate helminth expulsion (Begley & Nicola, 1999; Hussaarts et al. 2014; McRae et al. 2015). The Th2 response has also been described as a mediator for acute wound healing during helminth infection (Chen et al. 2012). IL‐10 expression promotes maintenance of the Th2 response by inhibiting the development of Th1 cells and thereby preventing the expression of proinflammatory cytokines such as interferon gamma (IFN‐γ) (Bigley & Nicola 1999; Couper et al. 2008).

Katahdin sheep are an economically important breed in the United States, ranking within the top six of registered breeds for the last several years (Morgan 2016). The Katahdin breed was developed through crosses of British wool breeds with the St Croix hair sheep (Wildeus 1997). The St Croix breed has been noted for its immune response and relative resistance to GIN (Burke & Miller 2004; Bowdridge et al. 2015). Some mature Katahdin ewes have been shown to have GIN resistance traits similar to St Croix upon natural infection (Burke & Miller 2002). Recent work estimated the heritability (h 2) of FEC in Katahdin lambs at 60 (h2 = 0.18–0.26) and 120 (h 2 = 0.23–0.46) days of age (Ngere et al. 2018), and periparturient ewes at lambing (h 2 = 0.29–0.41) and 30 days postpartum (h 2 = 0.17–0.31) (Notter et al. 2018). These generally moderate heritabilities for FEC suggest that parasite resistance can be improved through genetic selection.

In the current study animals were selected from a pool of 641 Katahdin ram lambs and sires enrolled in the National Sheep Improvement Program database. Selection was based upon high and low EBV for weaning FEC. Katahdin breeders collected stool samples from each animal’s rectum and FEC was quantified by a certified parasitology laboratory (LSU & V Tech Vet School). FEC data were submitted to the National Sheep Improvement Program for EBV prediction by LAMBPLAN (MLA 2004) to reduce variability owing to non‐genetic factors (Brown & Tier 2003; Ferguson 2016). To generate a more diverse sample set for genotyping, less related animals within each EBV category were chosen using a measure of genetic relatedness based on pedigree (Lewis et al. 2005; Kuehn et al. 2008) (Fig. S1). Using a multivariate approach, more related individuals were clustered. Individuals from discrete clusters were then selected. In total, 33 ram lambs and seven sires from eight different US farms were selected for inclusion in the GWAS, with 16 of these animals possessing high FEC EBV and 24 animals possessing low FEC EBV. The two categories captured approximately the top and bottom 10% of animals based on FEC EBV, a phenotypic indicator of GIN resistance.

DNA was extracted from blood samples using the phenol–chloroform method as previously described (Sambrook et al. 1989). The Applied Biosystems™ Axiom™ Ovine Genotyping Array (50K), which included 51 572 SNPs, was used for genotyping against the oar v4.0 reference genome assembly. Quality control was performed in plink v1.07, first excluding non‐autosomal SNPs and SNPs with a call rate less than 0.90, and then a MAF less than 0.01. Following quality control, 4885 SNPs were identified as duplicate markers. These duplicate SNPs were filtered by Fisher’s linear discriminate (FLD) genotype cluster quality score (Johnson & Wichern 2002). The marker with the best FLD genotype cluster score for each of the duplicated SNPs was retained. Following quality control and FLD filtering, 46 268 SNPs were included in analyses.

Genome‐wide association was first conducted for FEC EBV using a linear regression (LR) model using plink v1.90 software (Chang et al. 2015). The package 'qqman' in r version 3.5.1 was used to create the Manhattan plot (Turner 2014) (Fig. 1a).A second analysis was performed using a single‐locus mixed‐model (SLMM) through snp and variation suite™ version 8.7.2 (Golden Helix, Inc., http://www.goldenhelix.com) (Fig. 1b). The SLMM fits a kinship matrix to correct for cryptic relatedness as a random effect and offers more stringent control of the false discovery rate (Segura et al. 2012; Brzyski et al. 2017). Genome‐wide significance was defined by a Bonferroni correction for multiple testing [P ≤ −log10 (1.25−6)]. Genome‐wide suggestive was defined by [P ≤ −log10 (1 × 10−5)] (Fig. 1a,b).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Significant SNPs identified through linear regression and single‐locus mixed‐model GWASs. Genome‐wide significance is defined by a Bonferroni correction for multiple testing [P ≤ −log10 (1.25 × 10−6); red line] and genome‐wide suggestive is defined by [P ≤ −log10 (1 × 10−5); blue line]. (a) Left: Manhattan plot for the linear regression model; right: quantile–quantile plot for the linear regression model. (The QQ plot shows an early departure of observed from expected P‐values, suggesting that this method does not sufficiently account for P‐value inflation and may indicate the presence of type I error.) (b) Left: Manhattan plot for the single locus mixed‐model; right: quantile–quantile plot for the single locus mixed‐model. (c) Table displaying results for both models. LR, Linear regression; SLMM, single‐locus mixed‐model; MAF, minor allele frequency. Markers identified in previous studies are denoted as: *Periasamy et al. (2014), ⁺Atlija et al. (2016), #Sallé et al. (2012).

Using LR analysis, loci on chromosomes 2, 3, 16, 23 and 24 were significantly associated at the genome level with FEC EBV (Fig. 1a). Interestingly, a locus on chromosome 3 was within the gene complement C3a receptor 1 (C3AR1) and the locus on chromosome 16 was 87 kb upstream of the gene integrin subunit alpha 2 (ITGA2). C3AR1 has been reported to be differentially expressed in more susceptible vs resistant sheep (Ahmed et al. 2015) and has been associated with the Th1 immune response (Ghannam et al. 2014). Integrin subunit alpha genes have been found to be upregulated in more resistant animals under GIN infection (Zhang et al. 2019). The most significant SNP was located 2507 bp upstream of the gene DIS3 like 3′–5′ exoribonuclease 2 (DIS3L2). The MAF of this SNP was over‐represented in resistant (0.479) in comparison with susceptible (0.094) sheep (Fig. 1c). An additional SNP was located within the second intron of DIS3L2; this SNP reached significance in the LR model and was most significant using the SLMM model (Fig. 1b). Conversely, the MAF of this SNP was over‐represented in susceptible (0.719) in comparison with resistant (0.208) sheep (Fig. 1c).

DIS3L2 is the cytoplasmic exoribonuclease required for the decay of uridylated pre‐let‐7 and repression of let‐7 (lethal‐7) miRNAs in the Lin28A pathway (Chang et al. 2013; Ustianenko et al. 2013). Let‐7 has been associated with the immune response to parasite infection through the direct regulation of toll‐like receptor 4 expression, and researchers found that in vitro suppression of let‐7i miRNAs in human cholangiocyte cells corresponded with decreased Cryptosporidium parvum parasite burden (Chen et al. 2007). Let‐7 directly affects IL‐10 expression through binding to the IL10 3′UTR; both let‐7a and let‐7d family members have been associated with repression of IL‐10 (Schulte et al. 2011; Swaminathan et al. 2012). An absence of IL‐10 has been shown to result in increased levels of IFN‐γ and delayed expulsion of Trichinella spiralis in mice (Helmby & Grencis, 2003). Upregulation of IFN‐γ has been described in the abomasum and abomasal lymph nodes of sheep that were classified as susceptible to H. contortus infection (Zaros et al. 2014). Reduction of IFN‐γ expression may enhance the immune response to GIN, as this would favour the Th2 cell subset and antibody‐associated immune mechanisms (Coltman et al. 2001).

This preliminary study suggests that the gene DIS3L2 may have a role in GIN resistance in Katahdin sheep. We theorise that polymorphisms within or associated with DIS3L2 moderate its function to allow preferential degradation of the oligoU tail but not degradation of pre‐let‐7 itself. Instead, pre‐let‐7 may enter the maturation pathway following removal of the oligoU tail (Fig. 2). Considering the small sample size and uncorrected inflation factor in the LR model (λ = 1.51) (Fig. 1a), additional work is needed to validate these preliminary findings. Validation may be accomplished through increasing the sample size or expanding the study to include other populations of hair sheep. Future research is required to understand the immune mechanisms that differentiate GIN resistance from susceptibility.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Theorised DIS3L2 and let‐7 pathway mediating gastrointestinal nematode (GIN) resistance. In the presence of LIN28A and TUT4/TUT7 the pre‐let‐7 miRNA is uridylated and marked for degradation by DIS3L2. We propose that SNPs associated with DIS3L2 alter its function such that uridylation of pre‐let‐7 becomes a reversible event. DIS3L2 removes the oligoU tail in this model to allow pre‐let‐7 to continue into the maturation pathway with TUT4/TUT7 and Dicer. Mature let‐7 miRNAs bind to the IL10 3′UTR and prevent/reduce IL‐10 expression, ultimately allowing the Th1 immune response to be favored over the Th2, resulting in decreased resistance to GIN infection.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Supporting information

Figure S1 Eigenvector plot showing animal relatedness and phenotypic distribution.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the following for their involvement: Anna Rodriguez, Rebekka Job, Bonus Angus Farm, Birch Cove Farm, Destiny Acres, Downing Acres, Hound River Farm, Mammoth Hills Farm, USDA, ARS and Waldoview Farm. Thermo Fisher provided the genotyping for this research. This project was supported by Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative grant no. 2016‐51300‐25723 and Hatch grant IDA01566 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Data availability

QTL and phenotype data are available through the SheepQTLdb of the National Animal Genome Research Program, and can be accessed at https://www.animalgenome.org/QTLdb/supp/?t=FbNc7B5WsJ.

References

  1. Aguerre S., Jacquiet P., Brodier H., Bournazel J.P., Grisez C., Prévot F., Michot L., Fidelle F., Astruc J.M. & Moreno C.R. (2018) Resistance to gastrointestinal nematodes in dairy sheep: genetic variability and relevance of artificial infection of nucleus rams to select for resistant ewes on farms. Veterinary Parasitology 256, 16–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ahmed A.M., Good B., Hanrahan J.P. et al (2015) Variation in the ovine abomasal lymph node transcriptome between breeds known to differ in resistance to the gastrointestinal nematode. PLoS ONE 10, e0124823. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Atlija M., Arranz J.J., Martinez‐Valladares M. & Gutiérrez‐Gil B. (2016) Detection and replication of QTL underlying resistance to gastrointestinal nematodes in adult sheep using the ovine 50K SNP array. Genetics Selection Evolution 48, 4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Begley C.G. & Nicola N.A. (1999) Resolving conflicting signals: cross inhibition of cytokine signaling pathways. Blood 93, 1443–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bowdridge S.A., Zajac A.M. & Notter D.R. (2015) St. Croix sheep produce a rapid and greater cellular immune response contributing to reduced establishment of Haemonchus contortus . Veterinary Parasitology 208, 204–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Brown D.J. & Tier B. (2003) Alternate methods for estimating breeding values for faecal egg count data from Merino studs across Australia. Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics 15, 115–8. [Google Scholar]
  7. Brzyski D., Peterson C.B., Sobczyk P., Candès E.J., Bogdan M. & Sabatti C. (2017) Controlling the rate of GWAS false discoveries. Genetics 205, 61–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Burke J.M. & Miller J.E. (2002) Relative resistance of Dorper crossbred ewes to gastrointestinal nematode infection compared with St. Croix and Katahdin ewes in the southeastern United States. Veterinary Parasitology 109, 265–75. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Burke J.M. & Miller J.E. (2004) Relative resistance to gastrointestinal nematode parasites in Dorper, Katahdin, and St. Croix lambs under conditions encountered in the southeastern region of the United States. Small Ruminant Research 54, 43–51. [Google Scholar]
  10. Burke J.M. & Miller J.E. (2008) Use of FAMACHA system to evaluate gastrointestinal nematode resistance/resilience in offspring of stud rams. Veterinary Parasitology 153, 85–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chang H.M., Triboulet R., Thornton J.E. & Gregory R.I. (2013) A role for the Perlman syndrome exonuclease Dis3l2 in the Lin28–let‐7 pathway. Nature 497, 244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang C.C., Chow C.C., Tellier L.C., Vattikuti S., Purcell S.M. & Lee J.J. (2015) Second‐generation PLINK: rising to the challenge of larger and richer datasets. Gigascience 4, 7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen X.M., Splinter P.L., O'Hara S.P. & LaRusso N.F. (2007) A cellular micro‐RNA, let‐7i, regulates Toll‐like receptor 4 expression and contributes to cholangiocyte immune responses against Cryptosporidium parvum infection. Journal of Biological Chemistry 282, 28929–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen F., Liu Z., Wu W., Rozo C., Bowdridge S., Millman A., Van Rooijen N., Urban J.F., Wynn T.A. & Gause W.C. (2012) An essential role for T H 2‐type responses in limiting acute tissue damage during experimental helminth infection. Nature Medicine 18, 260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Coltman D., Wilson K., Pilkington J., Stear M. & Pemberton J. (2001) A microsatellite polymorphism in the gamma interferon gene is associated with resistance to gastrointestinal nematodes in a naturally‐parasitized population of Soay sheep. Parasitology 122, 571–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Couper K.N., Blount D.G. & Riley E.M. (2008) IL‐10: the master regulator of immunity to infection. Journal of Immunology 180, 5771–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Emery D.L., Hunt P.W. & Le Jambre L.F. (2016) Haemonchus contortus: the then and now, and where to from here? International Journal for Parasitology 46, 755–69. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferguson Mark (2016) Australian sheep breeding values – a guide for ram buyers. Sheep CRC. https://www.sheepcrc.org.au/files/pages/publications/publications/australian-sheep-breeding-values-a-guide-for-ram-buyers/Ram_Buyers_Guide_V4_November_2016_-_web.pdf
  19. Fleming S.A., Craig T., Kaplan R.M., Miller J.E., Navarre C. & Rings M. (2006) Anthelmintic resistance of gastrointestinal parasites in small ruminants. Journal of veterinary internal medicine 20, 435–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ghannam A., Fauquert J.L., Thomas C., Kemper C. & Drouet C. (2014) Human complement C3 deficiency: Th1 induction requires T cell‐derived complement C3a and CD46 activation. Molecular Immunology 58, 98–107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Helmby H. & Grencis R.K. (2003) Contrasting roles for IL‐10 in protective immunity to different life cycle stages of intestinal nematode parasites. European Journal of Immunology 33, 2382–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hussaarts L., Yazdanbakhsh M. & Guigas B. (2014) Priming dendritic cells for th2 polarization: lessons learned from helminths and implications for metabolic disorders. Frontiers in Immunology 5, 499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Jackson F. & Miller J. (2006) Alternative approaches to control—Quo vadit? Veterinary Parasitology 139, 371–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnson R.A. & Wichern D.W. (2002) Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis (Vol. 5, No. 8). Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kuehn L.A., Notter D.R., Nieuwhof G.J. & Lewis R.M. (2008) Changes in connectedness over time in alternative sheep sire referencing schemes. Journal of Animal Science 86, 536–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Lewis R.M., Crump R.E., Kuehn L.A., Simm G. & Thompson R. (2005) Assessing connectedness in across‐flock genetic evaluations. Journal of Animal Science. 83(Suppl 1), 129. [Google Scholar]
  27. McRae K.M., Stear M.J., Good B. & Keane O.M. (2015) The host immune response to gastrointestinal nematode infection in sheep. Parasite Immunology 37, 605–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) (2004) The Breeder's Guide: A Breeder's Guide to LAMBPLAN, Merino Genetic Services and KIDPLAN. Meat & Livestock Australia, North Sydney, NSW. [Google Scholar]
  29. Moncada D.M., Kammanadiminti S.J. & Chadee K. (2003) Mucin and Toll‐like receptors in host defense against intestinal parasites. Trends in Parasitology 19, 305–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Morgan J.L. 2016. Contribution of hair sheep to small ruminant profitability. In ASAS 2016 [cited 2016 Sep 30]. Available from: https://asas.confex.com/asas/jam2016/webprogram/Paper18973.html
  31. Ngere L., Burke J.M., Morgan J.L.M., Miller J.E.& Notter D.R. (2018) Genetic parameters for fecal egg counts and their relationship with body weights in Katahdin lambs. Journal of Animal Science 96, 1590–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Notter D.R., Ngere L., Burke J.M., Miller J.E. & Morgan J.L. (2018) Genetic parameters for ewe reproductive performance and peri‐parturient fecal egg counts and their genetic relationships with lamb body weights and fecal egg counts in Katahdin sheep. Journal of Animal Science 96, 1579–89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Periasamy K., Pichler R., Poli M. et al (2014) Candidate gene approach for parasite resistance in sheep–variation in immune pathway genes and association with fecal egg count. PLoS ONE 9, e88337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Saddiqi H.A., Jabbar A., Sarwar M., Iqbal Z., Muhammad G., Nisa M. & Shahzad A. (2011) Small ruminant resistance against gastrointestinal nematodes: a case of Haemonchus contortus . Parasitology Research 109, 1483–500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Sallé G., Jacquiet P. & Gruner L. et al (2012) A genome scan for QTL affecting resistance to Haemonchus contortus in sheep. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4690–705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sambrook J., Fritsch E.F. & Maniatis T. (1989). Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual (2nd edn). Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY. [Google Scholar]
  37. Schulte L.N., Eulalio A., Mollenkopf H.J., Reinhardt R. & Vogel J. (2011) Analysis of the host microRNA response to Salmonella uncovers the control of major cytokines by the let‐7 family. EMBO Journal 30, 1977–89. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Segura V., Vilhjálmsson B.J., Platt A., Korte A., Seren Ü., Long Q. & Nordborg M. (2012) An efficient multi‐locus mixed‐model approach for genome‐wide association studies in structured populations. Nature Genetics 44, 825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Shaw R.J., Morris C.A., Wheeler M., Tate M. & Sutherland I.A. (2012) Salivary IgA: a suitable measure of immunity to gastrointestinal nematodes in sheep. Veterinary Parasitology 186, 109–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Swaminathan S., Suzuki K. & Seddiki N. et al (2012) Differential regulation of the Let‐7 family of microRNAs in CD4+ T cells alters IL‐10 expression. Journal of Immunology 188, 6238–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Turner S.D. (2014) qqman: an R package for visualizing GWAS results using Q‐Q and manhattan plots. BioRxiv 005165. [Google Scholar]
  42. Uriarte J., Llorente M.M. & Valderrábano J. (2003) Seasonal changes of gastrointestinal nematode burden in sheep under an intensive grazing system. Veterinary Parasitology 118, 79–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Ustianenko D., Hrossova D., Potesil D., Chalupnikova K., Hrazdilova K., Pachernik J. & Vanacova S. (2013) Mammalian DIS3L2 exoribonuclease targets the uridylated precursors of let‐7 miRNAs. RNA 19, 1632–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Wildeus S. (1997) Hair sheep genetic resources and their contribution to diversified small ruminant production in the United States. Journal of Animal Science 75, 630–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Woolaston R.R. & Baker R.L. (1996) Prospects of breeding small ruminants for resistance to internal parasites. International Journal for Parasitology 26, 845–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Zajac A.M. (2006) Gastrointestinal nematodes of small ruminants: life cycle, anthelmintics, and diagnosis. Veterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice 22, 529–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Zaros L.G., Neves M.R.M., Benvenuti C.L., Navarro A.M.C., Sider L.H., Coutinho L.L. & Vieira L.S. (2014) Response of resistant and susceptible Brazilian Somalis crossbreed sheep naturally infected by Haemonchus contortus . Parasitology Research 113, 1155–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhang R., Liu F., Hunt P., Li C., Zhang L., Ingham A. & Li R.W. (2019) Transcriptome analysis unraveled potential mechanisms of resistance to Haemonchus contortus infection in Merino sheep populations bred for parasite resistance. Veterinary Research 50, 7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Figure S1 Eigenvector plot showing animal relatedness and phenotypic distribution.

Data Availability Statement

QTL and phenotype data are available through the SheepQTLdb of the National Animal Genome Research Program, and can be accessed at https://www.animalgenome.org/QTLdb/supp/?t=FbNc7B5WsJ.


Articles from Animal Genetics are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES