| Author |
Year |
SNP panel |
Species |
Objective of using ROHs |
Conclusions |
|
Gomez-Raya et al.
|
2015 |
35K |
Swine |
Obtain new autozygosity coefficients based on the size and distribution of ROHs and compare them with ROH frequency (FROH) and pedigree information (FPED) |
New coefficients of autozygosity provided additional information on recent consanguinity |
|
Howard et al.
|
2015 |
54K |
Bovine |
Identify regions of the genome that suffered diversity losses due to consanguinity and determine the relationship between additive effects and ROHs |
Several regions are associated with ROH < 4 Mb in the studied population and there is correlation between genetic additive effect and ROH < 4 Mb, which is an indicative of the influence of geographical location on homozygosity |
|
Kim et al.
|
2015b |
54K |
Bovine |
Identify the association between ROHs and consanguinity coefficients (F), as well as analyze ROHs identified in populations of dairy cattle |
ROHs reflect homozygosis strongly affected by recent artificial selection |
|
Kim et al.
|
2015a |
54K |
Bovine |
Identify selection signatures in Jersey cattle under selection since 1960 and compare them by the method for the identification of selection signatures via extended haplotypes |
The analysis of the estimated ROHs allows to efficiently identify selection signatures |
|
Marras et al.
|
2015 |
54K |
Bovine |
Compare FROH with the coefficient of genomic inbreeding matrices (FGRM) and FPED, in five different bovine breeds |
ROH is a powerful tool to estimate the coefficient of consanguinity |
|
Metzger et al.
|
2015 |
50K |
Equine |
Identify selection signatures in improved and non-improved horses |
The size and frequency of ROHs vary according to population diversity and selection pressure |
|
Saura et al.
|
2015 |
60K |
Swine |
Detect genomic regions responsible for the loss of genetic variability in reproductive characteristics of improved swine |
Genomic estimates based on the presence or absence of ROHs are a viable alternative for the detection of variability losses due to consanguinity |
|
Zavarez et al.
|
2015 |
777K |
Bovine |
Characterize levels of autozygosity, based on ROHs, in a population of Nellore cattle |
The analysis of ROHs allows characterizing herds according to their endogamy levels, besides identifying genomic regions with possible selection signatures for the breed |
|
Zhang et al.
|
2015a |
54K |
Bovine |
Compare different estimators of coefficient of consanguinity, calculated from pedigree information, with data from 50K SNP chip and from complete sequencing and estimate based on ROH |
FROH reflects direct homozygosity levels because it is not affected by allele frequencies, whereas FPED is limited due to its dependence on correct pedigree information |
|
Zhang et al.
|
2015b |
Complete genome |
Bovine |
Study ROH patterns to verify the effect of selection pressure and demography in the increase in the frequency of deleterious and non-deleterious sequences within ROHs |
ROH is efficient to detect functional variants in bovine populations and contributes for a better understanding of endogamy and selection effects in these populations |
|
Mastrangelo et al.
|
2016 |
54K |
Bovine |
Quantify consanguinity from information on ROHs estimated in three different bovine breeds of economic importance |
Consanguinity values in three bovine breeds, obtained via the detection and distribution of ROHs, evidenced the need of implementing conservation programs aiming to control consanguinity levels |
|
Gurgul et al.
|
2016 |
54K |
Bovine |
Compare FROH, FGRM, and FPED, test the correlation between these coefficients, and analyze if ROH or GRM may be interesting to estimate recent consanguinity in Holstein cattle |
Correlations between FROH and FPED tend to increase with the increase of pedigree information and indicate that FROH is the most recommended to estimate recent consanguinity |
|
Szmatoła et al.
|
2016 |
54K |
Bovine |
Characterize ROHs in four different bovine breeds and identify genomic regions with a high frequency of ROHs and that have been subjected to directional selection |
The size and distribution of ROHs vary according to the studied breed, with different ROH patterns for native, conserved or commercial breeds, and to possible selection signatures |
|
Reverter et al.
|
2017 |
729K 71K 19K |
Bovine |
Compare FGRM, the coefficient of homozygosity (FHOM), and FROH as estimators of consanguinity using data from three different panel densities in zebu cattle |
In heterogeneous populations (crossed animals), endogamy measures that do not depend on allele frequency, such as FHOM and FROH, are better recommended to estimate endogamy |