Journal of Animal Science and Technology

  • 제66권4호
  • /
  • Pages.717-725
  • /
  • 2024
  • /
  • 2672-0191(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2055-0391(eISSN)
한국축산학회 (Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Polymorphism analysis of tri- and tetranucleotide repeat microsatellite markers in Hanwoo cattle

  • Shil Jin (Hanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Jeong Il Won (Hanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Hyoun Ju Kim (Hanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Byoungho Park (Animal Breeding & Genetics Division, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Sung Woo Kim (Hanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Ui Hyung Kim (Hanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Sung-Sik Kang (Hanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Hyun-Jeong Lee (Hanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Sung Jin Moon (Hanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Myung Sun Park (Hanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Yong Teak Sim (miDNA Genome Research institute) ;
  • Sun Sik Jang (Hanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science) ;
  • Nam Young Kim (Hanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science)
  • 투고 : 2023.09.17
  • 심사 : 2024.01.23
  • 발행 : 2024.07.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The Hanwoo traceability system currently utilizes 11 dinucleotide repeat microsatellite (MS) markers. However, dinucleotide repeat markers are known to have a high incidence of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) artifacts, such as stutter bands, which can complicate the accurate reading of alleles. In this study, we examined the polymorphisms of the 11 dinucleotide repeat MS markers currently employed in traceability systems. Additionally, we explored four trinucleotide repeat MS markers and one tetranucleotide repeat MS marker in a sample of 1,106 Hanwoo cattle. We also assessed the potential utility of the tri- and tetranucleotide repeat MS markers. The polymorphic information content (PIC) of the five tri- and tetranucleotide repeat markers ranged from 0.663 to 0.767 (mean: 0.722), sufficiently polymorphic and slightly higher than the mean (0.716) of the current 11 dinucleotide repeat markers. Using all 16 markers, the mean PIC was 0.718. The estimated probability of identity (PI) was 3.13 × 10-12 using the 11 dinucleotide repeat markers, 7.03 × 10-6 using the five tri- and tetranucleotide repeat markers, and 2.39 × 10-17 using all 16 markers; the respective PIhalf-sibs values were 2.69 × 10-9, 1.29 × 10-4, and 3.42 × 10-13; and the respective PIsibs values were 3.89 × 10-5, 9.6 × 10-3, and 3.69 × 10-7. The probability of exclusion1 (PE1) was 0.999864 for the 11 dinucleotide repeat markers, 0.981141 for five of the tri- and tetranucleotide repeat markers, and > 0.99 for all 16 markers; the respective PE2 values were 0.994632, 0.901369, and > 0.99; and the respective PE3 values were 0.998702, > 0.99, and > 0.99. The five investigated triand tetranucleotide repeat MS markers can be used in combination with the 11 existing MS markers to improve the accuracy of individual identification and paternity testing in Hanwoo.

키워드

INTRODUCTION

Hanwoo cattle are an indigenous Korean livestock recognized for their unique genetic characteristics and pure bloodline distinguishable from exotic beef species. Hanwoo are being improved at the national level; excellent Hanwoo proven bulls are selected and numbered (KPN, Korean-Proven Bull’s Number) through the Hanwoo National Genetic Evaluation Program, and their semen is distributed to farms [1,2].

Hanwoo meat is managed through a traceability system, and consumers are provided historical farm-to-table information [3]. Korean traceability began with a pilot project in 2004, was promoted in 2008, and enacted and implemented as the Cattle and Beef Traceability Act in 2010. In 2014, it was revised to the Livestock and Livestock Products Traceability Act. The administrative rules of this act include the DNA Identification Methods for Livestock and Livestock Product Identification, which defines 11 dinucleotide repeat microsatellite (MS) markers used in DNA identity testing.

MS markers are short sequence repeats of 1–6 bp, which have proven valuable for studying variation within and between breeds. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the International Society for Animal Genetics (ISAG)–FAO Advisory Group proposed 30 MS markers for each of the nine major livestock species, including cattle, and recommended their use in genetic diversity studies [4].

While the continued development and commercialization of genetic analysis methods using high-density DNA microarrays has highlighted the accuracy and importance of studying paternity and genetic diversity using single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), MS markers are the most efficient means of identifying individuals and analyzing paternity and population relationships. In Hanwoo, MS markers are used mainly to improve the accuracy of pedigree through paternity testing. Currently, the Hanwoo Improvement Center provides MS marker information for paternity verification of KPNs, and the Korea Animal Improvement Association uses MS markers to mark individuals whose paternity testing has been completed. Securing and managing accurate pedigrees enables accurate evaluation of the genetic performance of individuals.

Parentage testing using genotypes such as MS presupposes that the data an individual possesses comes from its sire and dam. However, if an error occurs in genotyping, the actual paternity may be incorrectly excluded. Genotyping errors can occur due to stutter, null alleles, contamination, human error, among other factors. In fact, increasing the number of markers used for paternity determination without accommodating such errors may increase false exclusion [5].

Research on genetic diversity using MS markers in various livestock breeds and populations is ongoing [6–9]. In Hanwoo cattle, MS markers with three or more sequence repeats have been developed to improve the reliability and accuracy of individual identification and paternity testing [10,11]. Simple sequence repeats (SSRs), including MSs, are subject to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) artifacts, such as stutter bands and differential amplification, which can confound estimates of allele frequency. Stutter is prevalent with dinucleotide repeats, but less in tri- and tetranucleotide repeats [12,13].

The three or more nucleotide repeat markers studied in previous research have low discriminatory power due to a limited number of multiplex loci and are not configured for multiplex PCR with the dinucleotide markers currently used in the traceability system. Therefore, we investigated both the existing 11 dinucleotide repeat markers and new tri- and tetranucleotide repeat markers, which are enable for multiplex PCR, assessing their utility for individual identification and paternity testing in Hanwoo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Animals

The 1,106 Hanwoo cattle utilized in this study were bred at the Hanwoo Research Institute of the National Institute of Animal Science, comprising 367 females and 739 males, all born between 2006 and 2022. DNA analysis was conducted on blood or ear tissue samples collected from each individual.

Microsatellite marker information

This study investigated 11 dinucleotide repeat markers currently employed in the Hanwoo traceability system, along with four trinucleotide repeat markers and one tetranucleotide repeat marker previously investigated by Sim [14]. The selection of the five new markers was based on Sim’s research [14], specifically focusing on markers with a Power of Discrimination (PD) value exceeding 0.76 that can be multiplexed with the existing 11 dinucleotide repeat markers. For primer information, refer to the studies by Seilsuth et al. [15] and Sim [14]. Additional details are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Information on the 16 microsatellite markers examined in this study

DMJGDA_2024_v66n4_717_3_t0001.png 이미지

*Tri- and tetra nucleotide repeat microsatellite markers.

DNA extraction

First, 10 mg of tissue sample was placed in a 96-deep-well plate and lysed with 400 μL of lysis buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0; 50 mM NaCl; 10 mM EDTA, pH 8.0; and 0.2% sodium dodecyl sulfate) with 20 μL of proteinase K (20 mg/mL) for 6 hours at 55℃. Then, 800 μL of binding buffer (6M GuHCl; 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 6.1; and 20 mM EDTA, pH 6.1) was added to each sample. Finally, 100 μL of silica-coated magnetic beads was added and mixed. The magnetic beads in each well were washed twice with 800 μL of 80% ethanol. DNA was eluted in 110 μL of TE buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl; 1 mM EDTA, pH 8.0). The purified DNA was stored at −20℃.

Polymerase chain reaction amplification

Multiplex amplification was carried out in a final volume of 15 μL containing 20 ng of template DNA, 2 units of hot-start Taq polymerase (GenetBio, Daejeon, Korea), 1.5 μL of 10× Reaction buffer (with 20 mM MgCl2), 200 μM of each dNTP, 8.25 μL of 11 dinucleotide repeat markers fluorescence-labeled primer, and 0.2 μL (10 pM/μL) each tri- and tetranucleotide repeat marker fluorescence-labeled primer. The PCR steps included: initial denaturation at 94℃ for 10 minutes; nine cycles of 60 seconds at 94℃, 75 seconds at 60℃, and 60 seconds at 72℃; 5 cycles of 60 seconds at 94℃, 75 seconds at 57℃, and 60 seconds at 72℃; 25 cycles of 60 seconds at 94℃, 75 seconds at 55℃ and 60 seconds at 72℃; and final extension for 30 minutes at 65℃. The DNA was amplified in a ProFlex PCR System (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) in 96-well PCR plates.

Genotyping

The alleles were genotyped on a 3730xl Genetic Analyzer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) using POP-7™ Polymer (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and 36-cm capillaries. Next, 1/20 of the amplified PCR product and 0.05 μL of GeneScanTM LIZTM 500 size standard was prepared in 10 μL of Hi-DiTM formamide (Thermo Fisher Scientific). The samples were denatured for 2 minutes at 96℃, followed by rapid cooling on ice. The alleles were resolved using GeneMapperTM Software 5.0 (Thermo Fisher Scientific).

Data analysis

Cervus version 3.0.7 [5,16] and GenAlEx version 6.4 [17,18] were used to calculate allele counts and frequencies, observed (Hobs) and expected (Hexp) heterozygosity, and F-values (fixation index, inbreeding coefficient) for the markers. The polymorphic information content (PIC) and Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium tests for the markers were calculated using Cervus version 3.0.7 [5,16]. The probability of identity (PI) of the markers was calculated using API-CALC version 1.0 [19] and the probability of exclusion (PE) was calculated using GenAlEx version 6.4 [17,18]. F-statistics for the PI value estimation were calculated using GENEPOP version 4.7.3 [20,21], and scored genetic data used in GENEPOP version 4.7.3 [20, 21] and GenAlEx version 6.4 [17,18] were converted to Microsatellite analyzer (MSA) version 4.05 [22].

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Polymorphism analysis of microsatellite markers

Table 2 shows the results of the polymorphism analysis of 16 MS markers in 1,106 Hanwoo. The number of alleles for the 16 markers ranged from 5 to 14 (mean: 9.438). The 11 dinucleotide repeat markers currently used for DNA identity testing ranged from 5 (ETH3) to 14 alleles (TGLA227 and TGLA53) (mean: 9.182). The number of alleles for the five tri- and tetranucleotide repeats markers ranged from 8 (B9S5866) to 13 (B8S7996) (mean: 10).

Table 2. The number of alleles, observed and expected heterozygosity, p-value of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium test, fixed index, and polymorphic information content of 16 microsatellite markers in 1,106 Hanwoo

DMJGDA_2024_v66n4_717_5_t0001.png 이미지

N, number of alleles; Hobs, observed heterozygosity; Hexp, expected heterozygosity; HWE (p-value), p-value of Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium test; F, fixed index (inbreeding coefficient); PIC, polymorphic information content.

The 16 markers had Hobs values of 0.662–0.863 (mean: 0.759) and Hexp values of 0.66–0.843 (mean: 0.754). ETH225 had the lowest Hobs and Hexp values, and TGLA122 the highest, both dinucleotide repeat markers. The 11 dinucleotide repeat markers had mean Hobs and Hexp values of 0.753 and 0.752, respectively. The five tri- and tetranucleotide repeats markers had Hobs values of 0.737 (B12S5209) to 0.810 (B3S0990) (mean: 0.77), and Hexp values of 0.714 (B9S5866) to 0.794 (B3S0990) (mean: 0.759).

For the PIC, the dinucleotide repeat markers had values of 0.611 (ETH225) to 0.823 (TGLA122) (mean: 0.716). The tri- and tetranucleotide repeat markers had PIC values of 0.663 (B9S5866) to 0.767 (B3S0990) (mean: 0.722). The PIC values were slightly higher for the tri- and tetranucleotide repeat markers than the dinucleotide repeat markers, but all were above 0.5. PIC is calculated as the number and frequency of alleles, and lies within the range of 0–1. PIC values are indicative of more informative markers [23], where markers with values above 0.5 are classified as very informative [24]. Therefore, all 16 MS markers used in this study had sufficient polymorphism and were suitable for analyzing the genetic diversity of Hanwoo. The frequency of each allele is presented in the Table 3.

Table 3. The allele frequency of 16 microsatellite markers in 1,106 Hanwoo

DMJGDA_2024_v66n4_717_5_t0002.png 이미지

Probability of identity and probability of exclusion

Table 4 lists the PI and PE values calculated using combinations of the 11 dinucleotide repeat markers, of the five tri- and tetranucleotide repeat markers, and of all 16 markers. PI is the probability that the genotypes of two unrelated individuals in a randomly mated population are the same. PIhalf-sibs and PIsibs are the probabilities that two individuals have the same genotype in the half-sib and full-sib groups, respectively. If these values are high, there is a high probability that the genotypes of the markers used to distinguish the individuals are the same; this means that the usability as an entity identification marker is low. As the number of markers used increases, the genotype difference between the two individuals to be distinguished increases, so the PI decreases; as a result, the ability to distinguish individual increases. Therefore, it is necessary to find an appropriate number of genetic marker combinations with high discrimination power and use them for individual identification [25].

Table 4. The probability identification and probability of exclusion for 5, 11, and 16 microsatellite marker combinations

DMJGDA_2024_v66n4_717_6_t0001.png 이미지

MS, microsatellite; PI, Probability that the genotypes of two unrelated individuals in a randomly mated population are the same; PIhalf-sibs, probability that two individuals have the same genotype in the half-sib group; PIsibs, probability that two individuals have the same genotype in the half-sib group; PE1, probability of exclusion of one putative parent when the other parent’s genotype is known; PE2, probability of exclusion of one putative parent when the genotype of the other parent is missing; PE3, probability of excluding a putative parent pair.

In this study, the estimated average PI values were 3.13 × 10−12 using the existing 11 dinucleotide repeat markers, 7.03 × 10−6 using the five tri- and tetranucleotide repeat markers, and 2.39 × 10−17 using all 16 markers; the respective PIhalf-sibs values were 2.69 × 10−9, 1.29 × 10−4, and 3.42 × 10−13; and the respective PIsibs values were 3.89 × 10−5, 9.6 × 10−3, and 3.69 × 10−7. The cumulative PI was estimated to be 4.81 × 10−12 when using 11 markers, 9.43 × 10−6 when using five markers, and 4.15 × 10−17 when using all 16 markers.

PE aids in establishing the requisite number of loci for paternity tests. Within a population, a higher concordance percentage of markers between a sire (or dam) and offspring increases the confidence that they are related. A discrepancy in the genetic makeup between an individual and its purported parents amplifies PE. PE1, PE2, and PE3 are specific metrics that gauge the likelihood of excluding a certain parentage type. Pedigrees usually come from both the sire and dam. The rejection chance of MS markers for sire is used to challenge a sire’s claim by comparing the dam-offspring genotypes and a potential sire (PE1). When the genetic information of one parent isn’t available, PE2 represents the exclusion chance. If an offspring’s origin is wrongly linked to two parents and their genetic data is examined, the likelihood of denying their relationship can be estimated using PE3 [17,18,26,27].

In this study, PE1 was 0.999864 when using the 11 dinucleotide repeat marker combination, 0.981141 for the five tri- and tetranucleotide repeat marker combination, and > 0.99 for all 16 markers; the respective PE2 values were 0.994632, 0.901369, and > 0.99; and the respective PE3 values were 0.998702, > 0.99, and > 0.99.

In 163 Hanwoo, Lim et al. [28] reported PI and PIhalf-sibs values of 1.55 × 10−14 and 4.10 × 10−10 calculated from 11 MS markers and 1.09 × 10−17 and 1.42 × 10−10 from nine MS markers, respectively. Furthermore, in 480 Hanwoo, Lim et al. [29] reported PI, PIhalf-sibs, and PIsibs values of 3.43 × 10−27, 4.18 × 10−19, and 3.98 × 10−8 calculated from 14 MS markers and 2.09 × 10−24, 4.69 × 10−20, and8.02 × 10−12 from 60 SNP markers. All PE values exceeded 0.99, except for the case using a combination of nine marker sets (PEPU = 0.981904). Based on these results, Lim et al. [28,29] reported that the individual identification and paternity of the investigated marker combinations were sufficient when considering the total number of herds in Korea at the time and assuming a large half-sib population of Hanwoo.

As of March 2023, the number of Hanwoo raised nationwide was reported to be 3,470,499 heads [30]. When using only the five trinucleotide repeat marker combination investigated in this study, the individual discrimination (PIhalf-sibs = 1.29 × 10−4) and paternity rate (PE1 = 0.981141) were low level. However, the use of the five tri- and tetranucleotide repeat markers along with the 11 dinucleotide repeat markers increased the rate of individual identification and paternity (PIhalf-sibs = 3.42 × 10−13, PE1 ≥ 0.99). The five markers are useful because they all have adequate polymorphism (PIC > 0.5) and are compatible multiplex PCR with the 11 dinucleotide repeat markers. Sim et al. [10] confirmed that the stutter appearance ratio of four trinucleotide repeats, including B8S7996, in 105 Hanwoo was lower than those for the dinucleotide loci recommended by ISAG.

Brenig and Schütz [31] examined 12 MS markers selected by ISAG in the Holstein Friesian cattle population from 2004 to 2014 and found that most of the markers were associated with genes affecting economically important traits and reproduction. Therefore, they reported that the allele frequencies of some markers were increased or decreased significantly by selective breeding for these traits, reducing the overall informativeness and exclusion power of the marker panel, which could be addressed by adding markers. Hanwoo has also been improved by focusing on carcass traits, the markers investigated in this study can be considered for introduction as additional markers in the future.

Since the introduction of the Hanwoo traceability system, it has been possible to verify the pedigree information of individuals. Accurate pedigree management is an important factor in the production of superior individuals. Paternity testing can improve the accuracy and reliability of pedigree information; as the effect of improvement increases, the importance of pedigree information for predicting the genetic performance of an individual increases [32,33,34].

The tri- and tetranucleotide repeat MS markers investigated in this study offer the potential to diminish genotyping errors, such as stutter, and proactively address potential changes in the existing dinucleotide repeat marker set. Rather than exclusively utilizing the five tri- and tetra nucleotide repeat markers as a set, they could be considered for integration with the current set of 11 dinucleotide repeat markers used in the traceability system or for substitution of some of the existing 11 markers. Ultimately, the tri- and tetranucleotide repeat MS markers examined in this study have the capability to enhance individual identification and paternity testing rates in Hanwoo, contributing to the precise assessment of genetic performance.

참고문헌

  1. Lee SH, Park BH, Sharma A, Dang CG, Lee SS, Choi TJ, et al. Hanwoo cattle: origin, domestication, breeding strategies and genomic selection. J Anim Sci Technol. 2014;56:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2055-0391-56-2
  2. Kim S, Choi HJ, Alam M, Park MN. Breeding initiatives for Hanwoo cattle to thrive as a beef industry - a review study. J Anim Breed Genom. 2017;1:102-24. https://doi.org/10.12972/jabng.20170011
  3. Chung KY, Lee SH, Cho SH, Kwon EG, Lee JH. Current situation and future prospects for beef production in South Korea - a review. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2018;31:951-60. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.18.0187
  4. FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]. FAO animal production and health guidelines. No.9: molecular genetic characterization of animal genetic resources. Rome: FAO; 2011.
  5. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC. Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol. 2007;16:1099-106. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03089.x
  6. Choi NR, Seo DW, Jemaa SB, Sultana H, Heo KN, Jo C, et al. Discrimination of the commercial Korean native chicken population using microsatellite markers. J Anim Sci Technol. 2015;57:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40781-015-0044-6
  7. Choy YH, Seo JH, Park B, Lee SS, Choi JW, Jung K, et al. Studies on genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationships of Chikso (Korea Native Brindle Cattle) using the microsatellite marker. J Life Sci. 2015;25:624-30. https://doi.org/10.5352/JLS.2015.25.6.624
  8. Kang HC, Kim KW, Kim EH, Myung CH, Lee JG, Lim HT. Genetic diversity and relationship analyses of the Korea native black goat line using microsatellite markers. Korean J Agric Sci. 2021;48:693-702. https://doi.org/10.7744/kjoas.20210058
  9. Yu JS, Suh SW, Kim DH, Park B, Choi TJ, Park MN, et al. Analysis of changes in genetic characteristic and diversity of the Brindle cow (Chikso) population. J Anim Breed Genom. 2021;5:51-7. https://doi.org/10.12972/jabng.20210004
  10. Sim YT, Na JG, Lee CS. Forensic characterization of four new bovine tri-nucleotide microsatellite markers in Korean cattle (Hanwoo). J Anim Sci Technol. 2013;55:87-93. https://doi.org/10.5187/JAST.2013.55.2.87
  11. Kim HR, Lee JW, Go MJ, Park JE, Kim MJ, Baek YC, et al. Development of a new microsatellite markers for individual identification and paternity evaluation in Hanwoo. J Agric Life Sci. 2020;54:75-83. https://doi.org/10.14397/jals.2020.54.4.75
  12. Daniels J, Holmans P, Williams N, Turic D, McGuffin P, Plomin R, et al. A simple method for analyzing microsatellite allele image patterns generated from DNA pools and its application to allelic association studies. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62:1189-97. https://doi.org/10.1086/301816
  13. Guichoux E, Lagache L, Wagner S, Chaumeil P, Leger P, Lepais O, et al. Current trends in microsatellite genotyping. Mol Ecol Resour. 2011;11:591-611. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2011.03014.x
  14. Sim YT. Genetic polymorphism and characteristics of autosomal microsatellite markers in Korean cattle [Ph.D. dissertation]. Kunsan, Korea: Kunsan National University; 2013.
  15. Seilsuth S, Seo JH, Kong HS, Jeon GJ. Microsatellite analysis of the genetic diversity and population structure in dairy goats in Thailand. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2016;29:327-32. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0270
  16. Marshall TC, Slate J, Kruuk LEB, Pemberton JM. Statistical confidence for likelihood-based paternity inference in natural populations. Mol Ecol. 1998;7:639-55. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294x.1998.00374.x
  17. Peakall R, Smouse PE. GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol Ecol Notes. 2006;6:288-95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2005.01155.x
  18. Peakall R, Smouse PE. GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research-an update. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:2537-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts460
  19. Ayres KL, Overall ADJ. api-calc 1.0: a computer program for calculating the average probability of identity allowing for substructure, inbreeding and the presence of close relatives. Mol Ecol Notes. 2004;4:315-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00616.x
  20. Raymond M, Rousset F. GENEPOP (version 1.2): population genetics software for exact tests and ecumenicism. J Hered. 1995;86:248-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jhered.a111573
  21. Rousset F. genepop'007: a complete re-implementation of the genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol Ecol Resour. 2008;8:103-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8286.2007.01931.x
  22. Dieringer D, Schlotterer C. Microsatellite analyser (MSA): a platform independent analysis tool for large microsatellite data sets. Mol Ecol Notes. 2003;3:167-9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1471-8286.2003.00351.x
  23. Serrote CML, Reiniger LRS, Silva KB, Rabaiolli SMS, Stefanel CM. Determining the polymorphism information content of a molecular marker. Gene. 2020;726:144175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2019.144175
  24. Botstein D, White RL, Skolnick M, Davis RW. Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet. 1980;32:314-31.
  25. Waits LP, Luikart G, Taberlet P. Estimating the probability of identity among genotypes in natural populations: cautions and guidelines. Mol Ecol. 2001;10:249-56. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-294X.2001.01185.x
  26. Jamieson A, Taylor SCS. Comparisons of three probability formulae for parentage exclusion. Anim Genet. 1997;28:397-400. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2052.1997.00186.x
  27. Kathiravan P, Kataria RS, Mishra BP. Power of exclusion of 19 microsatellite markers for parentage testing in river buffalo (Bubalus bubalis). Mol Biol Rep. 2012;39:8217-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-012-1669-x
  28. Lim HT, Min HS, Moon WG, Lee JB, Kim JH, Cho IC, et al. Analysis and selection of microsatellites markers for individual traceability system in Hanwoo. J Anim Sci Technol. 2005;47:491-500. https://doi.org/10.5187/JAST.2005.47.4.491
  29. Lim HT, Seo BY, Jung EJ, Yoo CK, Yoon DH, Jeon JT. A comparison of discriminating powers between 14 microsatellite markers and 60 SNP markers applicable to the cattle identification test. J Anim Sci Technol. 2009;51:353-60. https://doi.org/10.5187/JAST.2009.51.5.353
  30. KOSIS [Korean Statistical Information Service]. Livestock statistics survey [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Sep 1]. https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=101&tblId=DT_1EO221&vw_cd=MT_ZTITLE&list_id=F1A_010_1010&seqNo=&lang_mode=ko&language=kor&obj_var_id=&itm_id=&conn_path=MT_ZTITLE
  31. Brenig B, Schutz E. Recent development of allele frequencies and exclusion probabilities of microsatellites used for parentage control in the German Holstein Friesian cattle population. BMC Genet. 2016;17:18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-016-0327-z
  32. Sun DW, Kim HK, Park MS, Lim HT, Choi KM, Lee JG. The parentage test's effect on carcass trait in Hanwoo. J Agric Life Sci. 2021;55:109-14. https://doi.org/10.14397/jals.2021.55.3.109
  33. Sun DW, Park MS, Choi KM, Kim HK, Kang HC, Lee JG, et al. Effects through parental identification of Korean cattle (Hanwoo). J Agric Life Sci. 2021;55:75-81. https://doi.org/10.14397/jals.2021.55.5.75
  34. Kim HK, Choi KM, Sun DW, Park MS, Lim HT, Lee JG. The paternity test and effect of environment on the calf auction price. J Agric Life Sci. 2020;54:67-71. https://doi.org/10.14397/jals.2020.54.6.67