Steer Planet - Show Steers and Club Calves Forum

Steer Planet Chat => The Big Show => Topic started by: librarian on July 09, 2021, 08:22:17 AM

Title: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: librarian on July 09, 2021, 08:22:17 AM
I am still studying the F94L mutation. This is a ďconservativeĒ mutation, where there is a substitution of one amino acid with similar function for another. The mutation is non disruptive.
I need some common sense help on a hypothesis concerning Myostatin role in glucose metabolism and some possible lactation energy adaptation rationale for regulatory tweaking during evo-devo. This includes a broader concept of adaptive mutation as non random change, but feedback driven adjustment to energy requirements. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1357272510003365 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1357272510003365)

In this paper F94L is Haplotype 1.
https://www.gse-journal.org/articles/gse/pdf/2003/01/g350106.pdf (https://www.gse-journal.org/articles/gse/pdf/2003/01/g350106.pdf)
ď When observing the non-disruptive haplotypes, haplotype 1 appeared in the Aubrac, Limousine and Pirenaica breeds; the latter two breeds were sur- prisingly those in which most individual phenotypes are not explained by a disruptive mutation in the myostatin gene. This indicated a higher pheno- typic influence than expected for a conservative mutation (work currently in progress).Ē
ď The pattern of haplotype sharing is an indicator of the history of the different bovine populations, or breeds, so the distribution of shared haplotypes is very useful to investigating population relationships. In the last century, different explanations on the origin of the double-muscled phenotype in different contin- ental beef breeds were proposed. One hypothesis is the extensive dissemination of individuals of the Shorthorn breed used in the late 19th century to improve most western European bovine breeds which would explain the presence of the trait [10, 25], and the other being the Friesian breed [9, 20, 31] or more generally milk purpose black pied bovine populations from the Baltic plain (Hanset, pers. comm.), being responsible for spreading the mutation all over western Europe [25].Ē
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: librarian on July 09, 2021, 08:23:11 AM
https://www.academia.edu/263862/Myostatin_Rapid_Sequence_Evolution_In_Ruminants_Predates_Domestication (https://www.academia.edu/263862/Myostatin_Rapid_Sequence_Evolution_In_Ruminants_Predates_Domestication)
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: librarian on July 09, 2021, 08:48:44 AM
This actually is very relevant to Shorthorn Breeders because, lbs pedigree inference on carrier animals,  the F94L mutation runs in bloodlines going back to Scottshill Major Clark.
Potential carrier Tea for the Tillerman ...then Thornwood Major...Spiro...even Columbus and Clark should be F94L tested. Then we would have better information.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: librarian on July 09, 2021, 08:56:33 AM
For instance, this is a bull I own. The DNA tab will take you to testing information....if the information has been shared with the ASA. I do not know when myostatin testing became more common...often I research animals the myostatin columns are blank.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: knabe on July 09, 2021, 09:12:22 AM
Contact the authors.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: Heritage Shorthorn on July 09, 2021, 11:03:59 AM
Tea for the Tillerman, Clark, Spiro, and Thornwood Major have all tested negative for F94L.  I believe that the problem with F94L started about 1980 with a specific outside Shorthorn bull that was purchased.  Whether the he was all Shorthorn is open to question.  To my knowledge no Heritage Shorthorn bull born prior to 1980 has ever tested positive for F94L.  A list of all the old Shorthorn bulls that have tested negative for TH, PHA, DS, and Myostatin are listed on the Heritage Shorthorn Society website (www.heritageshorthorn.org (http://www.heritageshorthorn.org)) under "Bulls Tested Free of Genetic Defects".  Approximately 10-12 bulls will be added to that listed later this year.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: librarian on July 09, 2021, 02:08:12 PM
If the bull in question is Waukuru T Marshall, then it would be worthwhile testing the bulls behind him again, as well as  LaFraise Duke 3rd. As Sherlock Holmes said, first eliminate the impossible.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: knabe on July 09, 2021, 10:43:34 PM
do you want the mutation/s?
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: knabe on July 10, 2021, 10:59:02 AM
https://www.ksre.k-state.edu/news/stories/2021/02/beef-tenderness-factors-that-influence-eating-quality.html (https://www.ksre.k-state.edu/news/stories/2021/02/beef-tenderness-factors-that-influence-eating-quality.html)

pretty clear that the driver for one characteristic is not universal in all cuts.


not sure what to think/do about this.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: Dale on July 11, 2021, 12:22:57 PM
We market some freezer beef, and carcass is of extra interest in our program.  This myostatin mutation is important to nearly everyone breeding cattle, including dairy, with the breeds listed in the 2nd article.  In Shorthorns there are 2 more myostatin mutations to deal with.  Every breeder needs to do a deep think about what their decisions are, for F94L and whatever other myostatin mutations their breed has.  "Ignorance is bliss" might not serve one well?  Research shows we are still learning!

Have individual breeders selecting for natural thickness accidently been adding double muscling over the decades prior to the testing that is available now?  Are some of the carrier breeds, yes an entire breed, not looking/testing?
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: knabe on July 11, 2021, 02:57:43 PM

Have individual breeders selecting for natural thickness accidently been adding double muscling over the decades prior to the testing that is available now? 


i used to think this.  not sure now.


i started testing old maine sires.  there are only a few that were double muscle carriers.  just doing the testing to have it on record.  most i'm using are not carriers, and if they are, only using them on dna tested cows that are DM free.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: Dale on July 11, 2021, 03:41:18 PM
I am not sure either.  We owned another Weston Surprise bull, the 3rd.  His phenotype was thicker than most, plus his prominent stifle was something that attracted us to him.  He was in the ASA sire test and his progeny were not desirable in cutability (like a bull would likely be if he carried a double muscling/myostatin gene?).

We owned Weston Goliath, also with one Frosty Acres parent, maybe a relative to the Surprises.  Other breeders used Surprise bulls from Doc Nold.  It would be helpful to know where the F94L came from in Weston Surprise 14th's pedigree....  Maybe, as Nold, when asked what that bloodline was, said, "It's a surprise." 
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: Dale on July 11, 2021, 06:26:05 PM
Weston Surprise 14th is NOT a carrier of F94L.  I apologize for my error.  The F94L carrier is DMH What A Surprise ET, right?

Thanks for the phone call, Joe S. and setting the record straight!
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: librarian on July 12, 2021, 10:30:15 AM
To Knabe sí question, do I want the mutations?
At this point, I am selecting for F94L because I inadvertently line bred for it through the Maid of Promise 189th cow. There was a flush of this cow and ET bulls produced from that flush from Weston Trademark 3rd, Weston Surprise 14th, Ball Dee Perfect Count, Cruachan Max Leader. Those are the ones I know of. Over a decade, I was impressed by daughters of these various bulls that I saw in different programs. I liked their roominess and moderate size. All I saw had good feet and udders and they seemed like all around practical beef brood cows that were stamped with a certain Shorthorn phenotype. So I started buying daughters, and daughters of daughters or daughters of grandsons and then a bull...stacking the 189 cow.
Finally, I saw F94L in red letters on a pedigree when I was searching progeny of my bull.
Iím not so much interested in who carries the mutation, but why.
Homozygous individuals are orders of magnitude more tender, according to one research paper, than heterozygous individuals. There is less collagen in the meat. The muscle fibers are longer and more numerous. There are two phenotypes, an ďapple buttĒ type and a type that carries muscle far down the leg- ďmeat to the ankleĒ.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: librarian on July 12, 2021, 10:31:27 AM
Continued...
Fast twitch and slow twitch muscle, cortisol, energy storage in muscle, brown fat, heat production, on and on..all related to myostatin regulation. Myostatin is involved  a fascinating evolutionary story of RNA response to fluctuating energy demands in females. We are seeing F94L mutations in Shorthorns, I think, coming from the old Milking Shorthorn genetics in Dual Purpose Native herds today. If the genetic testing is correct on the old bulls I mentioned, then that leaves the dam of whatever outcross bull brought it in. The F94L mutation is not disruptive, it does not silence or delete the code for myostatin. The mutation substitutes one amino acid for another in the copy of the genetic code, tweaking Myostatinsí role in energy metabolism.
It remains to be seen if the meat, with less fat and collagen and with increased cutable muscle yield, is savory as well as tender. Iím a beef producer, and given that Aubrac- which carries the mutation, can produce some of the best beef, milk and cheese around- Iím optimistic. Maybe itís all about milk components and the beef components are value added. I donít know. Getting all sideways about who carries the gene is not my point...my point is trying to figure out the inheritance and how that history relates to custom beef production today.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: knabe on July 12, 2021, 01:16:03 PM
so you want animals to display double muscling?
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: librarian on July 12, 2021, 09:23:59 PM
so you want animals to display double muscling?
No, not in any extreme phenotypic way. If there is some kind of metabotype advantage in terms of feed intake and bone to muscle ratio, reduction of back fat and increase in tenderness, increased disease resistance or enhanced cold weather frugal maintenance or an A2 A2 milk fat connection,Iím interested in exploring that. I donít see the F94L variant as a negative genetic mutation, I see it as an ancient energetic flexibility that we donít understand very well. If anything, we have probably bred a lot of that flexibility out by this or that aspect of domestication. Until it causes me a problem, Iím going to maintain the mutation in my herd..
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: librarian on July 14, 2021, 10:23:11 AM
so you want animals to display double muscling?
No, not in any extreme phenotypic way. If there is some kind of metabotype advantage in terms of feed intake and bone to muscle ratio, reduction of back fat and increase in tenderness, increased disease resistance or enhanced cold weather frugal maintenance or an A2 A2 milk fat connection,Iím interested in exploring that. I donít see the F94L variant as a negative genetic mutation, I see it as an ancient energetic flexibility that we donít understand very well. If anything, we have probably bred a lot of that flexibility out by this or that aspect of domestication. Until it causes me a problem, Iím going to maintain the mutation in my herd..
In fact, as a test these,  I think I will carry on line breeding for homozygotes and report back later on carcass quality as well as feed intake and disease resistance.
ď Corresponding to the effects on collagen, the F94L myostatin variant genotype increased tenderness. The homozygous F94L AA variant genotype resulted in a 15.4% decrease in peak force com-pared to the wild-type homozygote (CC) (Fig. 4). This effect was seen in both aged and unaged beef. There was a significant difference in compression toughness of 9.8% between the homozygotes.Campo, SaŮudo, Panea, Alberti, and Santolaria (1999) found that meat from double muscled animals in general was more tender than that from normal animals shortly after slaughter. However, this effect on tenderness disappeared after ageing for the meat for 14 days post-slaughter (Campo et al., 1999). The results herein show that the effect of F94L myostatin allele on tenderness was still significant for both peak force and compression after aging for 26dayĒ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51778044_Limousin_myostatin_F94L_variant_affects_semitendinosus_tenderness (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51778044_Limousin_myostatin_F94L_variant_affects_semitendinosus_tenderness)
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: Hopster1000 on July 14, 2021, 11:39:42 AM
The incidence of myostatin in the cattle isn't a major problem for me as long as I know it is there and can plan for it. However I am starting to be of the opinion that it is much better to breed cattle without it, for one main reason, and that is because I think it hides narrow cattle. Not always, but you will soon find out when you get offspring from a myostatin carrier that is free from the mutation.
Suddenly what you had thought of was a thick line of cattle turns out to be not when the myostatin mutation is bred out of it.
A single mutation doesn't seem to cause problems with milk, calving or fertility etc It's the thickness that disappears when it disappears is my issue with it.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: knabe on July 15, 2021, 08:20:27 PM


 but you will soon find out when you get offspring from a myostatin carrier that is free from the mutation.



interesting observation
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: Medium Rare on July 15, 2021, 09:23:11 PM
The incidence of myostatin in the cattle isn't a major problem for me as long as I know it is there and can plan for it. However I am starting to be of the opinion that it is much better to breed cattle without it, for one main reason, and that is because I think it hides narrow cattle. Not always, but you will soon find out when you get offspring from a myostatin carrier that is free from the mutation.
Suddenly what you had thought of was a thick line of cattle turns out to be not when the myostatin mutation is bred out of it.
A single mutation doesn't seem to cause problems with milk, calving or fertility etc It's the thickness that disappears when it disappears is my issue with it.

I think most people over look this.

Not only is it a false phenotype, but it is also affecting the numbers. The system can't comprehend that the marbling and rib eye are unusual for a reason or that the ww an yw might out perform the prediction. Throw a half a dozen carriers into the breed organized sire test and you have a mess within what was already a borderline statistical guess.

I plan to use a well known e226x carrier on a myo free cow, for non muscling reasons, and have found an F94L carrier I would also like to try. The F94L carrier's phenotype is the reason I was interested in using him, but his test results have put him on the back burner until I convince myself there isn't a clean bull out there built like he is to try instead.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: librarian on July 16, 2021, 10:54:54 AM


 but you will soon find out when you get offspring from a myostatin carrier that is free from the mutation.



interesting observation

This is a great observation, especially when compounded with amount of energy available for rumen fermentation.
ď Even though the outcome is different, there are similarities in dairy and beef cattle from a nutrigenomic perspective. For instance, both the synthesis of milk fat in dairy cows and the synthesis of intramuscular fat in beef steers are regulated by a similar network of TF. Nutrients or stimulus received with the diet (PUFAs, insulin, etc.), activates PPARα in the liver of the dairy cow and PPARγ in the intramuscular preadipocyte of a beef steer. The activated PPARs form a heterodimer with retinoic X receptor alpha (RXRA), leading to the upregulation of their lipogenesis-related target genes (Figure 2). Furthermore, in the same way, the activation of the PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathway will lead to the synthesis of milk protein in dairy cows [120], the activation of the same metabolic pathway might lead to muscle hypertrophy in beef cattle, but this is a concept that has not been completely elucidated [121]. It is also worth to mention the importance of fatty acid binding proteins (FABPs) in ruminants, which bind and transport LCFA. FABP4 affects milk yield and milk protein content, both economically important traits in the dairy industry [122], and FABP4 also presents gene polymorphisms that have been associated with meat quality traits in beef cattle [123]. https://www.intechopen.com/books/gene-expression-and-control/gene-regulation-in-ruminants-a-nutritional-perspective (https://www.intechopen.com/books/gene-expression-and-control/gene-regulation-in-ruminants-a-nutritional-perspective)
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: librarian on July 16, 2021, 10:56:00 AM
From the above paper
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: Hopster1000 on July 16, 2021, 02:52:30 PM
The incidence of myostatin in the cattle isn't a major problem for me as long as I know it is there and can plan for it. However I am starting to be of the opinion that it is much better to breed cattle without it, for one main reason, and that is because I think it hides narrow cattle. Not always, but you will soon find out when you get offspring from a myostatin carrier that is free from the mutation.
Suddenly what you had thought of was a thick line of cattle turns out to be not when the myostatin mutation is bred out of it.
A single mutation doesn't seem to cause problems with milk, calving or fertility etc It's the thickness that disappears when it disappears is my issue with it.

I think most people over look this.

Not only is it a false phenotype, but it is also affecting the numbers. The system can't comprehend that the marbling and rib eye are unusual for a reason or that the ww an yw might out perform the prediction. Throw a half a dozen carriers into the breed organized sire test and you have a mess within what was already a borderline statistical guess.

I plan to use a well known e226x carrier on a myo free cow, for non muscling reasons, and have found an F94L carrier I would also like to try. The F94L carrier's phenotype is the reason I was interested in using him, but his test results have put him on the back burner until I convince myself there isn't a clean bull out there built like he is to try instead.

I think the single copy of myostatin in the shorthorn breed is like a false economy. The double copy (usually e226x) causes too many problems. In the UK and Ireland the F94L mutation is often called the profit gene as a double copy doesn't really affect calving or milk production.

In a perfect world the numbers should only really be drawn from non carrier cattle I think.

I have semen and embryos that have carriers of myostatin and I'm unsure whether to continue to use them or not as I don't know how thick and how much ribe eye etc a non carrier will have. For instance, maybe someone here could tell me, what are non carriers bred from Northern Legend like?

If, like you, I was to use a carrier, I would be looking to see if there was non carrier offspring that I could see.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: Hopster1000 on July 16, 2021, 03:03:11 PM


 but you will soon find out when you get offspring from a myostatin carrier that is free from the mutation.



interesting observation

E226X seems to be the worst variant for covering up inadequate base thickness in cattle. However, different breeding lines have different results when the myostatin drops out. Alta Cedar Perfect Storm lines don't seem to suffer as much. Diamond Captain Mark and Waukaru Patent lines can be hit and miss but I think the worst are the Trump lines. Good looking cattle with myostatin mutation, but completely different without it.

I should point out that is my own personal observation from a small number of cattle and when observed over a larger population it may be very different.

Even F94L isn't good when it drops out. Must LIM cattle over here have 2 copies. Which means if used on dairy cattle or beef cattle one copy will always be passed on. I have seen LIM offspring from Holstein dairy cows from a bull LIM bull that only carried one copy. The non carrier calves just looked like black Holsteins. No thickness whatsoever passed on.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: Dale on July 24, 2021, 09:42:18 AM
Hopster1000, that is food for thought, as an old farmer used to say to the preacher on Sunday after the sermon.  Yours and other posters sure got my attention about the phenotype of offspring of myostatin carriers. 

Many hog breeds added thickness to their hams and general muscularity by infusing Pietrain genetics, a quick fix.  If one is patient, is adding natural thickness to beef cattle by selection not preferable to getting there rapidly via myostatin carriers? 
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: knabe on July 24, 2021, 05:04:00 PM
is adding natural thickness to beef cattle by selection not preferable to getting there rapidly via myostatin carriers?


it would probably be interesting to do more investigation of the poor cattle and why they are what they are as well as the "good" ones.


genetically, they are equally interesting.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: Medium Rare on July 24, 2021, 09:19:41 PM
Hopster1000, that is food for thought, as an old farmer used to say to the preacher on Sunday after the sermon.  Yours and other posters sure got my attention about the phenotype of offspring of myostatin carriers. 

Many hog breeds added thickness to their hams and general muscularity by infusing Pietrain genetics, a quick fix.  If one is patient, is adding natural thickness to beef cattle by selection not preferable to getting there rapidly via myostatin carriers?

I watched several pigs die as a result of it as well. 30 plus years later, maybe even 100+ in some cases, and they're still sorting the resulting stress gene out of the populations. Some of those populations were never even supposed to have had the source of that gene in them. Odd how that works.

We made some really lean protein, that occasionally tasted funny, as fast as we could though.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: knabe on July 25, 2021, 02:10:47 PM
here's a thick bull


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv5rL0WRwKo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv5rL0WRwKo)

i've seen a few sons that were thick.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: Hopster1000 on July 25, 2021, 04:19:10 PM
here's a thick bull


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv5rL0WRwKo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv5rL0WRwKo)

i've seen a few sons that were thick.


Good bull obviously. He definitely made good money!
Does he carry a myostatin mutation?
I looked up his registration and unless I'm reading it wrong his defects are AMF-CAF-D2F-DDF-M1F-NHF-OHF-OSF-RDF. Does this bull have this many? I am still doubting that I am reading the registration page wrongly.
I could hardly believe how long the list of possible genetic mutations there are in Angus.
The list code for myostatin seems to be DM?

If he is not a myostatin carrier is he naturally thick then? And he passes that thickness to his offspring. If he were to be used on a myostatin female carrier and she passed it on, would the resulting calves then be much thicker than that sire would normally breed?
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: knabe on July 25, 2021, 08:07:06 PM
is he naturally just thick then?


Yes. Him and sons top sellers at jlg

http://www.jlgenterprises.com/ (http://www.jlgenterprises.com/)

Jlg is awesome.  Anyone wanting entry into calif dairy should contact them. They have a few odd breeds/bulls as well as mainstream angus and Holstein.
Title: Re: Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds, 2003
Post by: Hopster1000 on July 26, 2021, 06:10:19 AM
is he naturally just thick then?

Yes. Him and sons top sellers at jlg


I know there is plenty of thick shorthorns as well, but sometimes it is hard to tell just what is naturally thick and what is myostatin. Would all breeds not have similar issues with single carrier myostatin sires?
I've used quite a few carriers, sometimes because I didn't realise it and sometimes because other options were not available.
Have bred a myostatin free bull that I thought was good enough and reasonably thick and I used him this year.
He's a grandson of the Australian bull Broughton Park Thunder and his dam goes back to Ballyart Vantage. He's a 2 year old.
Hope I've got the pictures right!