Next Article in Journal
Pequi Oil (Caryocar brasiliense Camb.) Attenuates the Adverse Effects of Cyclical Heat Stress and Modulates the Oxidative Stress-Related Genes in Broiler Chickens
Next Article in Special Issue
Relationship between Beef Quality and Bull Breed
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Electroejaculation Protocols on Semen Quality and Concentrations of Testosterone, Cortisol, Malondialdehyde, and Creatine Kinase in Captive Bengal Tigers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/ani13121895
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Relationship between Some Myostatin Variants and Meat Production Related Calving, Weaning and Muscularity Traits in Charolais Cattle

by
Tamás Csürhés
1,
Ferenc Szabó
2,*,
Gabriella Holló
3,*,
Edit Mikó
4,
Márton Török
1 and
Szabolcs Bene
3
1
National Association of Hungarian Charolais Cattle Breeders, 3525 Miskolc, Hungary
2
Department of Animal Sciences, Albert Kázmér Faculty, Széchenyi István University, 9200 Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary
3
Institute of Animal Husbandry Sciences, Kaposvár Campus, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 7400 Kaposvár, Hungary
4
Faculty of Agriculture, University of Szeged, 6800 Hódmezővásárhely, Hungary
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(12), 1895; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121895
Submission received: 3 May 2023 / Revised: 28 May 2023 / Accepted: 5 June 2023 / Published: 6 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Carcass Traits and Meat Quality in Cattle)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of different myostatin alleles on muscularity of four body parts and overall muscularity, and, moreover, on calving ease, birth weight and 205-day weaning weight of weaned calves in the Hungarian Charolais population. Five myostatin alleles of 2046 calves were involved in the study. Among the myostatin alleles, the effect of Q204X was statistically proved (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05) on the 205-day weaning weight, muscle score of back, muscle score of thigh, loin thickness score and overall muscle development percentage. It would be advisable to pay more attention to this allele in the breeding program.

Abstract

The slaughter value of live cattle can be assessed during visual conformation scoring, as well as by examining different molecular genetic information, e.g., the myostatin gene, which can be responsible for muscle development. In this study, the F94L, Q204X, nt267, nt324 and nt414 alleles of the myostatin gene (MSTN) were examined in relation to birth weight (BIW), calving ease (CAE), 205-day weaning weight (CWW), muscle score of shoulder (MSS), muscle score of back (MSB), muscle score of thigh (MST), roundness score of thigh (RST), loin thickness score (LTS), and overall muscle development percentage (OMP) of Charolais weaned calves in Hungary. Multi-trait analysis of variance (GLM) and weighted linear regression analysis were used to process the data. Calves carrying the Q204X allele in the heterozygous form achieved approximately 0.14 points higher MSB, MST and LTS, and 1.2% higher OMP, and gained 8.56 kg more CWW than their counterparts not carrying the allele (p < 0.05). As for the F94L allele, there was a difference of 4.08 kg in CWW of the heterozygous animals, but this difference could not be proved statistically. The other alleles had no significant effect on the evaluated traits.

1. Introduction

The value of slaughter animals, that is, the carcass composition and meat quality of meat-producing farm animals, such as slaughter cattle, can be reliably evaluated with post-slaughter muscle and fat measurements and laboratory tests. In beef production, however, slaughterhouse evaluation and laboratory meat quality testing are often impossible in the trade, as the animals are marketed on a live basis. Despite failing the mentioned objective evaluation possibilities, both the sellers and the buyers must be able to appraise, visually or in other ways, the meat production value of these animals.
The meat production value of slaughter animals can be evaluated with a high degree of accuracy based on several seen, measured and estimated conformation traits. A large number of research results from literary sources support the fact that the age, weight, sex, conformation, condition, muscle mass and shape of live animals provide reliable information about their meat production; however, some environmental factors can also play an important role [1]. The mentioned traits can be easily assessed by visual scoring. At the same time, some major genes or quantitative trait loci (QTL) have been identified related to meet quantity and quality [2,3]. The latter situation gives us the opportunity to perform tests on live animals, as DNA can be isolated from blood or other tissue, and the gene or gene variants affecting meat production can be detected. Such tests can be carried out early, before slaughter of animals at a young age.
An indicator of slaughter value could be myostatin, which is an extracellular cytokine mostly expressed in skeletal muscles and known to play a crucial role in the negative regulation of muscle mass [4,5].
Sellick et al. [6] studying the different variants of MSTN found that F94L was the only polymorphism consistently related to increased muscling. Wiener et al. [7] found that the myostatin allele with the 11-bp deletion (MH) segregating in the South Devon breed affected several traits related to beef production. The MH allele was associated with heavier calves at birth but slower growth, leading to lighter adult animals. Allais et al. [8] found the superiority of carcass traits of calves carrying one copy of the mutated allele (Q204X or nt821) over noncarrier animals was approximately +1 SD in the Charolais and Limousin breeds but was not significant in the Blonde d’Aquitaine. In the Charolais breed, for which the frequency was the greatest (7%), young bulls carrying the Q204X mutation presented a carcass with less fat, less intramuscular fat and collagen contents, and a clearer and more tender meat than those of homozygous-normal cattle. Hales et al. [9] reported that the average daily gain measured in Limousin heifers across the whole study (121 days) was greater with two copies of the F94L (homozygous) variant. According to Ceccobelli et al. [10], the heterozygous MSTN in Marchigiana bulls showed slight superiority in the carcass weight (heterozygote 426 kg and normal 405 kg) and meat quality parameters, although not always with statistical significance.
Looking at the relevant literature, even though there are many research results available on the effect of myostatin on meat production in cattle, especially in double-muscled cattle [11,12], relatively less is known about the effect of certain alleles in the Charolais breed. Based on previous data [13,14,15], it seems that there are significant differences between the phenotypic performance of individuals carrying and not carrying the myostatin alleles [16]. According to our opinion, this information is very important for improving performance, quality and genetic traits of the Hungarian Charolais population.
To our knowledge, phenotypic characteristics of calves related to MSTN alleles in the Hungarian Charolais population, even certain allele variants in the Charolais breed, has not been studied so far.
The objective of the present study was to evaluate some myostatin alleles such as F94L and Q204X and others (nt267, nt324 and nt414) on birth weight, calving ease, 205-day weaning weight and muscle score of some body parts (shoulder, back, thigh and loin), and overall muscularity showing muscle development and trend of these traits in the Charolais beef cattle population in Hungary.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. The Database

Data processed during the work were collected from the pedigree database, the National Association of Hungarian Charolais Cattle Breeders. The available and evaluated initial database contained pedigree, weaning, conformation traits and molecular genetic information. In the study, there were 2046 EU-registered weaned Charolais calves (688 male and 1358 female) born between 2015 and 2021.

2.2. The Studied Traits

During the study, the birth weight of calves (BIW), calving ease of dams (CAE), 205-day weaning weight of calves (CWW), muscle score of shoulder (MSS), muscle score of back (MSB), muscle score of thigh (MST), roundness score of thigh (RST), loin thickness score (LTS) and overall muscle development percentage (OMP) as phenotypic traits of weaned calves were evaluated in relation to MSTN mutations.
The conformation traits were scored at the weaning. The scoring of the mentioned body parts was carried out according to the Conformation Scoring Guideline of the National Association of Hungarian Charolais Cattle Breeders [17]. Each animal for each trait was scored from 1 to 10 points depending on the mass and shape of the muscles. However, the values of the OMP were calculated as the sum of the scores of each body part and the ratio of the maximum possible total score in per cent as follows:
OMP = (MSS + MSB + MST + RST + 2 × LTS) / 60
The calving ease of cows was scored as follows: normal light calving = 1, calving with assistance = 2 and difficult calving = 3.

2.3. The Molecular Genetic Informations

The molecular genetic information of the 2046 weaned calves was determined with the Weatherbys Scientific Bovine VersaSNP 50K chip. The description of the method and the possibilities of interpreting the results are described in detail by [18].
The genetic database contained information on 117 different alleles. In the course of this study, five relevant alleles of the gene encoding the myostatin protein (growth differentiation factor 8; GDF8), F94L, Q204X, nt267, nt324 and nt414 were examined [19,20]. Based on the available information [21,22,23], it seems that these alleles can have a significant impact on muscle growth, including the development of muscularity. In each case, it was indicated in the database whether the individuals carry the F94L, Q204X, nt267, nt324 and nt414 alleles in the homozygous or heterozygous form, or not. The distribution of these alleles by sex of calves is shown in Table 1.

2.4. The Effect of Different Factors

Before evaluating the database, the basic statistical parameters of the examined traits (mean, standard deviation, CV%, etc.) were calculated. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to check the normality of the data, and Levene’s test was used to check the homogeneity of the variances (Table 2).
To evaluate the database, the multifactor analysis of variance (general linear model) was applied [24]. During this work, the birth year and sex of the calves, as well as the genotype determined on the basis of the myostatin alleles (mentioned above), were incorporated into the model as fixed effects [16]. The nine examined traits were treated separately from each other, and in all nine cases separated models were performed. The general formula of the models used was as follows:
ŷhijklmn = μ + Yh + Si + Fj + Qk + Nl + Mm + Tn + ehijklmn
where ŷhijklmn = trait of a weaned calf of “h” year, “i” sex, “j” F94L, “k” Q204X, “l” nt267, “m” nt324 and “n” nt414 genotypes; μ = average of all observations; Yh = effect of birth year of calves; Si = effect of sex of calves; Fj = effect of F94L allele; Qk = effect of Q204X allele; Nl = effect of nt324 allele; Mm = effect of nt324 allele; Tn = effect of nt414 allele; and ehijklmn = random error [10].

2.5. Estimation of Phenotypic Trends and Phenotypic Correlations

For all nine traits, the data of the calves born in the same year were analyzed and averaged by year. Weighted one-way linear regression analysis was used to estimate the phenotypic trends. The dependent variable was the evaluated trait, the birth year of calves was considered as an independent variable, and the weight was the number of individuals per year.
Among the nine evaluated traits, Pearson’s phenotypic correlation values (r) were also determined.

2.6. The Used Softwares

The data were prepared using Microsoft Excel 2003 and Word 2003. The evaluation of the database was performed with the statistical software package SPSS 27.0 [25].

3. Results

For all traits, the influence of the sex and birth year of the calf was statistically verifiable (p < 0.01) and played a decisive role (62.27–96.74%) in the development of the phenotype (Table 3). The effect of the year of birth of the calves on the tested traits was also significant (p < 0.01). Among the myostatin alleles, the effect of Q204X was statistically proved (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05) on the traits CWW, MSB, MST, LTS and OMP. The other alleles had no effect on the evaluated weaning and muscularity traits.
The adjusted overall mean values (±SE) of the examined traits was as follows (Table 4 and Table 5): BIW 43.65 ± 0.63 kg, CAE 1.12 ± 0.05 points, CWW 269.07 ± 4.73 kg, MSS 5.90 ± 0.11 points, MSB 5.39 ± 0.11 points, MST 5.65 ± 0.12 points, RST 5.54 ± 0.12 points, LTS 5.52 ± 0.11 points and OMP 55.86 ± 0.96%.
Regarding CWW, the calves carrying the Q204X allele in the heterozygous form in the studied population gained 8.56 kg more weight than their counterparts not carrying the allele. From the point of view of the F94L allele, there was a difference of 4.08 kg in favor of the heterozygous individuals, but this difference could not be verified statistically. The weight of the individuals carrying the nt324 and nt414 alleles in the homozygous form was higher (10.43 kg and 2.92 kg, respectively) than the noncarriers, but these differences were not significant either.
Regarding the muscularity scores, it could be established that calves carrying the Q204X allele in the heterozygous form achieved approximately a 0.14 point higher MSB, MST and LTS, and a 1.2% higher OMP than their noncarrying partners. Despite the fact that the F94L allele had no statistically verifiable effect on muscularity parameters, it was striking that noncarrier calves showed higher values in almost all muscularity scores than heterozygous carriers. In the case of the nt267 allele, the muscularity score of the heterozygous calves was higher—although not significantly—than that of the noncarrier individuals, and in the case of the nt324 and nt414 alleles even more so in the homozygous carriers.
In the case of all traits, we observed considerable differences between the individuals born in different years. This was also supported by the results of the phenotypic trend calculation (Table 6), according to which six of the nine examined traits were statistically reliable (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01), and fairly well matched (R2 = 0.57−0.93) regression functions were obtained. In the case of BIW and CWW, the slope of the straight lines (b) was in a positive increasing direction, while in the case of the other traits it was in a negative decreasing direction. Here it must be noted that, in the case of muscularity parameters, the annual decrease is very small, typically −0.05 or −0.07 points/year.
Based on the obtained phenotypic correlation values (Table 7), it could be established that the calving and weaning traits did not show a close relationship with each other or with the muscularity traits (r = 0.00−0.24). On the other hand, there was a close (r = 0.61−0.92) and statistically reliable (p < 0.01) correlation between the muscularity scores.

4. Discussion

The myostatin gene (MSTN) or sometimes called growth and differentiation factor 8 (GDF8) is a major negative regulator of skeletal muscle mass and differentiation, but MSTN also exists in smooth muscles [26]. In addition to muscle tissue, the influence of the MSTN on bone development has been established [27]. Moreover, MSTN causes a variety of metabolic changes affecting glucose and lipid metabolism and total bile acid content [28], as well as resulting in changes in semen characteristics [29]. An association was observed between the mutation in MSTN and susceptibility to a skin disease [30].
It is well known that there are several mutations in the coding region that have been detected as disruptive mutations (deletions, insertions and nucleotide substitutions) and they are thought to inhibit the function of the MSTN protein and are strongly associated with the double-muscling phenotype [22,31].
The F94L allele, a missense variant, was characterized by the substitution of cytosine by adenine at the nucleotide position of 282 in exon 1, which led to causing substitutions of leucine (Leu) for phenylalanine (Phe) at the 94th amino acid in the MSTN gene. Interestingly, the F94L mutation was not considered to cause a loss of MSTN function, which led an intermediate muscling in Charolais cattle [22].
The Q204X allele of this gene is a disruptive variant, and heterozygous carriers in the Charolais population had a greater mean carcass weight and conformation estimated breeding values (EBVs) [32], but this allele also caused calving difficulties and fertility problems [33].
We are interested in further three silent mutations, i.e., the polymorphisms of the myostatin gene caused by the nt267, nt324 and nt414 MSTN mutations.
In our study, during the evaluation of the effect of myostatin alleles, Q204X was statistically proved to have an effect on the 205-day weaning weight, muscle score of back, muscle score of tight, loin thickness score and muscle development percentage. Calves carrying the Q204X allele in the heterozygous form in the studied population were heavier than those not carrying this allele. However, animals carrying the F94L allele in the heterozygous form were also heavier, but the difference was not significant. The weaning weights of calves carrying the nt324 and nt414 alleles in the homozygous form were higher than the noncarriers, but these differences were not significant either.
Similar to the results of our work, several previous sources [8,21,34] contain information on the statistically verifiable effect of the Q204X allele on meat production related traits. Contrary to our results, several previous studies [6,16] found the effect of the F94L allele to be significant on some muscularity-related parameters. Among the alleles belonging to the “small” myostatin group, we only found information on the effect of the double-muscled related allele nt821 in existing sources [31,35,36]; however, this allele did not have an effect in the tested Charolais stock. The genetic structure of the nt267, nt324 and nt414 alleles was previously described by Dunner et al. [21], but no literature data were found on their effect on the phenotypic results.
The results of our work are similar to the findings of Casas et al. [12], according to which myostatin alleles in heterozygous form can have a favorable effect on weaning traits. Contrary to the results of Allais et al. [8], we could not detect the effect of the Q204X allele on birth weight in the examined Charolais herd. Similar to the results of Esmailizadeh et al. [22], the effect of the F94L allele on birth and weaning traits was not found to be significant. Our results are in line with Zhao et al.’s [29] findings: the MSTN-gene-edited Chinese Yellow cattle had improved growth traits compared with wild-type counterparts; however, the birth weight yielded no significant difference among groups, but, with increasing month age, the weight gain rate of MSTN-gene-edited cattle was significantly higher.
In this study, the weaning weight of Charolais calves were similar to the data found in most of the relevant literary sources [37,38,39].
The MSTN polymorphisms have negative effects on their reproductive traits, for example, calving difficulties (dystocia) [27]. First, Arthur et al. [40] studied Charolais cross animals and reported a higher incidence of dystocia, which was associated with phenotypically muscular calves. Moreover, the height, width and area of pelvic opening in homozygous dams were significantly smaller compared with normal dams. As previously established [41], Charolais heterozygous calves were slightly heavier at birth, with no association with calving ease.
On the basis of the calving ease score observed during our work, it seems that there was fewer difficult calving in the studied herd than what was found in the literature [42,43] in the case of the Charolais breed. It can be explained by the fact that our calves, heterozygous for the double-muscle gene, are superior to normal cattle in terms of meat production traits and do not have calving problems.
We found very little information available in the literature about the conformation of Charolais calves related to their muscularity. Arango et al. [44] and Vallée et al. [45] published data on purebred and crossbred Charolais herds, but, due to the different methodology, we did not have the opportunity to compare them with our results.
A better muscular conformation in heterozygote (E291X variant) carcasses of Marchigiana bulls [10] reflected our statement about the muscularity score of the heterozygous calves in the cases of the nt267, nt324 and nt414 alleles. As previously stated by Ceccobelli et al. [10], the greater muscularity of heterozygous animals compared with normal ones could be a starting point to improving productive efficiency in beef cattle. Regarding these MSTN gene polymorphisms in Charolais cattle, to our knowledge, no such data exist in the literature.
It seems that MSTN calves had significant improvement in muscularity traits, as previously described in MSTN-gene-edited cattle [29]. Recently, Gaina and Amalo [46] found two SNPs (c424 and c467) of the MSTN gene in (Bos indicus) cattle, which are associated with phenotypes of wither height, heart girth and hip height, but not with body weight or body length.
The differences by birth year and sex of calves in weaning weight obtained during our work are very well known in the literature [47,48]. However, we did not find any data for this kind of evaluation of the muscularity parameters of Charolais calves.
Similar to our results, Gutiérrez et al. [49] and Chud et al. [50] did not find a close correlation between BIW, CAE and CWW traits in the case of the Asturiana de los Valles breed of cattle, and in the case of the Nellore breed.

5. Conclusions

Since Q204X had the greatest effect on calving, weaning and muscularity-related traits, we think it would be advisable to pay attention to this allele in the breeding strategy, to increase the proportion of carriers from generation to generation. It would be advisable to repeat this test periodically, because, based on literature data too, it seems that the allele in its homozygous form could cause calving difficulties.
Based on the results, the favorable effect of the F94L allele was not detectable in our study, contrary to some literary reports, which could be a consequence of the proportion of animals carrying the allele (about 5.5%) being very small in the studied population. On the other hand, based on previous studies, the better phenotypic performance of individuals carrying the allele was more evident in the fattening and slaughter traits.
The proportion of calves carrying the nt324 and nt414 alleles was quite high (21.5% and 48.1%, respectively) in the examined Charolais population. However, in the literature, there was very little information about their effect on phenotypic performance. Based on our results, it seems that homozygous carrier individuals may have better growth performance-related traits than noncarrier individuals. Therefore, it would be advisable to pay more attention to this allele.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.C. and M.T.; methodology, S.B.; software, S.B.; validation, G.H. and E.M.; formal analysis, F.S.; investigation, S.B.; resources, F.S. and S.B.; data curation, M.T., and S.B.; writing—original draft preparation, S.B. and F.S.; writing—review and editing, S.B., G.H. and F.S.; visualization, S.B.; supervision, G.H. and E.M.; project administration, M.T.; funding acquisition, T.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study did not require ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the National Association of Hungarian Charolais Cattle Breeders.

Acknowledgments

The authors would also like to express their gratitude to the National Association of Hungarian Charolais Cattle Breeders and the association’s staff for making the starting databases available.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cunningham, M.; Latour, M.A.; Acker, D. Animal Science and Industry, 7th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  2. Georges, M.; Grobet, L.; Poncelet, D.; Royo, L.J.; Pirottin, D.; Brouvers, B. Positional candidate cloning of the bovine mh locus identifies an allelic series of mutations disrupting the myostatin function and causing double-muscling in cattle. In Proceedings of the 6th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Armidale, Australia, 11–16 January 1998; Volume 26, pp. 195–204. [Google Scholar]
  3. Stinckens, A.; Luyten, T.; Bijttebier, J.; van den Maagdenberg, K.; Dieltiens, D.; Janssens, S.; Buys, N. Characterization of the complete porcine MSTN gene and expression levels in pig breeds differing in muscularity. Anim. Genet. 2008, 39, 586–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Mirhoseini, S.Z.; Zare, J. The role of myostatin on growth and carcass traits and its application in animal breeding. Life Sci. 2012, 9, 2353–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Elkina, Y.; von Haehling, S.; Anker, S.D.; Springer, J. The role of myostatin in muscle wasting: An overview. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2011, 2, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Sellick, G.S.; Pitchford, W.S.; Morris, C.A.; Cullen, N.G.; Crawford, A.M.; Raadsma, H.W.; Bottema, C.D.K. Effect of myostatin F94L on carcass yield in cattle. Anim. Genet. 2007, 38, 440–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wiener, P.; Woolliams, J.A.; Frank-Lawale, A.; Ryan, M.; Richardson, R.I.; Nute, G.R.; Wood, J.D.; Homer, D.; Williams, J.L. The effects of a mutation in the myostatin gene on meat and carcass quality. Meat Sci. 2009, 83, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Allais, S.; Levéziel, H.; Payet-Duprat, N.; Hocquette, J.F.; Lepetit, J.; Rousset, S.; Denoyelle, C.; Bernard-Capel, C.; Journaux, L.; Bonnot, A.; et al. The two mutations, Q204X and nt821, of the myostatin gene affect carcass and meat quality in young heterozygous bulls of French beef breeds. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 88, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Hales, K.E.; Tait, R.G.; Lindholm-Perry, A.K.; Freetly, H.C.; Brown-Brandl, T.M.; Bennett, G.L. Effects of the F94L Limousin associated myostatin gene marker on metabolic index in growing beef heifers. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2020, 36, 851–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ceccobelli, S.; Perini, F.; Trombetta, M.F.; Tavoletti, S.; Lasagna, E.; Pasquini, M. Effect of myostatin gene mutation on slaughtering performance and meat quality in Marchigiana bulls. Animals 2022, 12, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Grobet, L.; Poncelet, D.; Royo, L.J.; Brouwers, B.; Pirottin, D.; Michaux, C.; Ménissier, F.; Zanotti, M.; Dunner, S.; Georges, M. Molecular definition of an allelic series of mutations disrupting the myostatin function and causing double-muscling in cattle. Mamm. Genome 1998, 9, 210–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Casas, E.; Keele, J.W.; Fahrenkrug, S.C.; Smith, T.P.L.; Cundiff, L.V.; Stone, R.T. Quantitative analysis of birth, weaning, and yearling weights and calving difficulty in Piedmontese crossbreds segregating an inactive myostatin allele. J. Anim. Sci. 1999, 77, 1686–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Short, R.E.; MacNeil, M.D.; Grosz, M.D.; Gerrard, D.E.; Grings, E.E. Pleiotropic effects in Hereford, Limousin and Piedmontese F2 crossbred calves of genes controlling muscularity including the Piedmontese myostatin allele. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Mosher, D.S.; Quignon, P.; Bustamante, C.D.; Sutter, N.B.; Mellersh, C.S.; Parker, H.G.; Ostrande, E.A. A mutation in the myostatin gene increases muscle mass and enhances racing performance in heterozygote dogs. PLoS Genet. 2007, 3, e79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Tozaki, T.; Miyake, T.; Kakoi, H.; Gawahara, H.; Sugita, S.; Hasegawa, T.; Ishida, N.; Hirota, K.; Nakano, Y. A genome-wide association study for racing performances in Thoroughbreds clarifies a candidate region near the MSTN gene. Anim. Genet. Suppl. 2010, 41, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Lines, D.S.; Pitchford, W.S.; Kruk, Z.A.; Bottema, C.D.K. Limousin myostatin F94L variant affects semitendinosus tenderness. Meat Sci. 2009, 81, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Domokos, Z.; Tőzsér, J. Conformation Scoring Guideline of National Association of Hungarian Charolais Cattle Breeders; National Association of Hungarian Charolais Cattle Breeders: Miskolc, Hungary, 2004; pp. 25–33. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
  18. Kusza, S.; Hegedűs, B.; Domokos, Z. A Guide to Interpreting Gene Variants on the Weatherbys Scientific Bovine VersaSNP 50K Chip; National Association of Hungarian Charolais Cattle Breeders: Miskolc, Hungary, 2020; pp. 32–39. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
  19. Arnold, H.; Della-Fera, M.A.; Baile, C.A. Review of myostatin history, physiology and applications. Int. Arch. Biosci. 2001, 1, 1014–1022. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hadjipavlou, G.; Matika, O.; Clop, A.; Bishop, S.C. Two single nucleotide polymorphisms in the myostatin (GDF8) gene have significant association with muscle depth of commercial Charollais sheep. Anim. Genet. 2008, 39, 346–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dunner, S.; Miranda, M.E.; Amigues, Y.; Canón, J.; Georges, M.; Hanset, R.; Williams, J.; Ménissier, F. Haplotype diversity of the myostatin gene among beef cattle breeds. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2003, 35, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Esmailizadeh, A.K.; Bottema, C.D.K.; Sellick, G.S.; Verbyla, A.P.; Morris, C.A.; Cullen, N.G.; Pitchford, W.S. Effects of the myostatin F94L substitution on beef traits. J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 86, 1038–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Aiello, D.; Patel, K.; Lasagna, E. The Myostatin gene: An overview of mechanisms of action and its relevance to livestock animals. Anim. Genet. 2018, 49, 505–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Bene, S.; Polgár, J.P.; Szűcs, M.; Márton, J.; Szabó, E.; Szabó, F. Population genetic features of calving interval of the Limousin beef cattle breed in Hungary. Acta Vet. Hung. 2022, 70, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0; IBM Corporation: Armonk, NY, USA, 2020.
  26. Gu, M.; Wang, S.; Di, A.; Wu, D.; Hai, C.; Liu, X.; Bai, C.; Su, G.; Yang, L.; Li, G. Combined Transcriptome and Metabolome Analysis of Smooth Muscle of Myostatin Knockout Cattle. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 8120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Konovalova, E.; Romanenkova, O.; Zimina, A.; Volkova, V.; Sermyagin, A. Genetic variations and haplotypic diversity in the myostatin gene of different cattle breeds in Russia. Animals 2021, 11, 2810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Wu, D.; Gu, M.; Wei, Z.; Bai, C.; Su, G.; Liu, X.; Zhao, Y.; Yang, L.; Li, G. Myostatin knockout regulates bile acid metabolism by promoting bile acid synthesis in cattle. Animals 2022, 12, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhao, Y.; Yang, L.; Su, G.; Wei, Z.; Liu, X.; Song, L.; Hai, C.; Wu, D.; Hao, Z.; Wu, Y.; et al. Growth traits and sperm proteomics analyses of myostatin gene-edited chinese yellow cattle. Life 2022, 12, 627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Meyermans, R.; Janssens, S.; Coussé, A.; Gorssen, W.; Hubin, X.; Mayeres, P.; Veulemans, V.; Claerebout, E.; Charlier, C.; Buys, N. Myostatin mutation causing double muscling could affect increased psoroptic mange sensitivity in dual purpose Belgian Blue cattle. Animal 2022, 16, 100460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Bellinge, R.H.S.; Liberles, D.A.; Iaschi, S.P.A.; O’Brien, P.A.; Tay, G.K. Myostatin and its implications on animal breeding: A review. Anim. Genet. 2005, 36, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Purfield, D.C.; Evans, R.D.; Berry, D.P. Reaffirmation of known major genes and the identification of novel candidate genes associated with carcass-related metrics based on whole genome sequence within a large multi-breed cattle population. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Purfield, D.C.; Evans, R.D.; Berry, D.P. Breed-and trait-specific associations define the genetic architecture of calving performance traits in cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98, skaa151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Charlier, C.; Coppieters, W.; Farnir, F.; Grobet, L.; Leroy, P.L.; Michaux, C.; Mni, M.; Schwers, A.; Vanmanshoven, P.; Hanset, R.; et al. The mh gene causing double-muscling in cattle maps to bovine chromosome 2. Mamm. Genome 1995, 6, 788–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Miranda, M.E.; Amigues, Y.; Boscher, M.Y.; Ménissier, F.; Cortés, O.; Dunner, S. Simultaneous genotyping to detect myostatin gene polymorphism in beef cattle breeds. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2002, 119, 361–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. González-Berríos, C.L.; Rivera-Serrano, A.; Casas-Guérnica, A.; Sonstegard, T.; Pagán-Morales, M. Molecular breeding values distribution in slick male and female Senepol cattle differing in musculature. J. Anim. Sci. Suppl. 2016, 94, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Dodenhoff, J.; van Vleck, L.D.; Gregory, K.E. Estimation of direct, maternal and grand maternal genetic effects for weaning weight in several breeds of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1999, 77, 840–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Donoghue, K.A.; Bertrand, J.K. Investigation of genotype by country interactions for growth traits for Charolais populations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and USA. Liv. Prod. Sci. 2004, 85, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fördős, A.; Fürst-Waltl, B.; Baumung, R.; Bene, S.; Szabó, F. Estimation of genetic parameters for weaning traits in Austrian Charolais cattle fitting sire x year interaction as an additional random effect. Züchtungskunde 2010, 82, 181–194. [Google Scholar]
  40. Arthur, P.; Makarechian, M.; Price, M. Incidence of dystocia and perinatal calf mortality resulting from reciprocal crossing of double-muscled and normal cattle. Can. Vet. J. 1988, 29, 163. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  41. Kišacová, J.; Kúbek, A.; Meluš, V.; Čanakyová, Z.; Řehout, V. Genetic polymorphism of MYF-5 and Myostatin in Charolais breed. J. Agrobiol. 2009, 26, 7–11. [Google Scholar]
  42. Phocas, F.; Bloch, C.; Chapelle, P.; Bécherel, F.; Renand, G.; Ménissier, F. Developing a breeding objective for a French purebred beef cattle selection programme. Liv. Prod. Sci. 1998, 57, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Eriksson, S.; Nasholm, A.; Johansson, K.; Philipsson, J. Genetic parameters for calving difficulty, stillbirth, and birth weight for Hereford and Charolais at first and later parities. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82, 375–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Arango, J.A.; Cundiff, L.V.; van Vleck, L.D. Breed comparisons of Angus, Charolais, Hereford, Jersey, Limousin, Simmental and South Devon for weight, weight adjusted for body condition score, height, and body condition score in beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 3123–3132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Vallée, A.; van Arendonk, J.A.M.; Bovenhuis, H. Genetic parameters for calving and conformation traits in Charolais x Montbéliard and Charolais x Holstein crossbred calves. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 5582–5588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Gaina, C.D.; Amalo, F.A. Genetic polymorphism of myostatin gene in Sumba Ongole (Bos indicus) cattle and its association with growth traits. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2022, 9, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lee, C.; van Tassel, C.P.; Pollak, E.J. Estimation of genetic variance and covariance components for weaning weight in Simmental cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 75, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Teixeira, B.B.M.; MacNeil, M.D.; da Costa, R.F.; Dionello, N.J.L.; Yokoo, M.J.; Cardoso, F.F. Genetic parameters and trends for traits of the Hereford and Braford breeds in Brazil. Liv. Sci. 2018, 208, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gutiérrez, J.P.; Goyache, F.; Fernández, I.; Alvarez, I.; Royo, L.J. Genetic relationships among calving ease, calving interval, birth weight, and weaning weight in the Asturiana de los Valles beef cattle breed. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 85, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Chud, T.C.S.; Caetano, S.L.; Buzanskas, M.E.; Grossi, D.A.; Guidolin, D.G.F.; Nascimento, G.B.; Munari, D.P. Genetic analysis for gestation length, birth weight, weaning weight, and accumulated productivity in Nellore beef cattle. Liv. Sci. 2014, 170, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Occurrence of myostatin alleles in the examined population.
Table 1. Occurrence of myostatin alleles in the examined population.
Myostatin AlleleGenotypeMale CalvesFemale CalvesTotal
Number of Animals
F94LNoncarrier65112821933
Heterozygous3776113
Homozygous000
Q204XNoncarrier60611851791
Heterozygous82173255
Homozygous000
nt267Noncarrier63313181981
Heterozygous254065
Homozygous000
nt324Noncarrier54710601607
Heterozygous132277409
Homozygous92130
nt414Noncarrier3577051062
Heterozygous277548825
Homozygous54105159
Total68813582046
Table
Table 2. Basic statistics of the examined traits (number of animals for each trait 2046).
Table 2. Basic statistics of the examined traits (number of animals for each trait 2046).
TraitMeanSDCV%MinMaxNorm *Hom #
BIW (kg)43.635.9913.7421700.070.11
CAE (score)1.160.4538.55130.510.00
CWW (kg)258.1544.3017.161254040.030.00
MSS (score)5.541.1019.91290.180.06
MSB (score)5.131.0520.39280.190.02
MST (score)5.361.1621.712100.170.27
RST (score)5.351.1221.01290.180.33
LTS (score)5.261.0720.45290.180.13
OMP (%)53.159.6218.1020870.050.04
BIW = birth weight; CAE = calving ease; CWW = 205-day weaning weight; MSS = muscle score of shoulder; MSB = muscle score of back; MST = muscle score of thigh; RST = roundness score of thigh; LTS = loin thickness score; OMP = overall muscle development percentage. * Normality test: if p > 0.05, the normal distribution is confirmed; # homogeneity test: if p > 0.05, the homogeneity is confirmed.
Table
Table 3. Effect of the examined factors on the calving, weaning and the muscularity traits.
Table 3. Effect of the examined factors on the calving, weaning and the muscularity traits.
FactorsTraits
BIWCAECWWMSSMSBMSTRSTLTSOMP
p
Birth year of calves<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
Sex of calves<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01<0.01
F94LNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
Q204XNSNS<0.01NS<0.05<0.05NS<0.05<0.05
nt267NSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
nt324NSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
nt414NSNSNSNSNSNSNSNSNS
FactorsThe ratio of the examined factors in phenotype (%)
Birth year of calves8.5319.193.841.951.261.526.632.441.97
Sex of calves90.3762.2787.9096.1896.7494.4392.3295.5396.49
F94L0.241.390.680.120.390.010.210.500.24
Q204X0.002.055.290.631.041.790.041.070.81
nt2670.016.120.030.100.031.300.070.100.16
nt3240.071.021.170.350.060.240.070.080.03
nt4140.164.540.380.400.210.190.280.030.07
Error0.623.420.710.270.270.520.380.250.23
Total100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0
BIW = birth weight; CAE = calving ease; CWW = 205-day weaning weight; MSS = muscle score of shoulder; MSB = muscle score of back; MST = muscle score of thigh; RST = roundness score of thigh; LTS = loin thickness score; OMP = overall muscle development percentage.
Table
Table 4. The effect of different factors on the calving and weaning traits.
Table 4. The effect of different factors on the calving and weaning traits.
FactorsNCalving and Weaning Traits
BIW
(kg)		CAE
(Score)		CWW
(kg)
Adjusted overall mean (±SE)204643.65 ± 0.631.12 ± 0.05269.07 ± 4.73
Deviation from the overall mean
Birth year of calves
  • – 2015
195−0.98+0.16−6.02
  • – 2016
51−0.37−0.10−9.20
  • – 2017
139−2.36−0.02−4.12
  • – 2018
296+0.46+0.00−2.01
  • – 2019
540−0.06+0.04+4.67
  • – 2020
597+0.76-0.02+6.93
  • – 2021
228+2.54−0.05+9.74
Sex of calves
  • – male
688+1.67+0.05+11.54
  • – female
1358−1.67−0.05−11.54
F94L
  • –noncarrier
1933+0.17+0.01−2.04
  • – heterozygous
113−0.17−0.01+2.04
Q204X
  • – noncarrier
1791−0.01−0.01−4.28
  • – heterozygous
255+0.01+0.01+4.28
nt267
  • – noncarrier
1981−0.05+0.04−0.54
  • – heterozygous
65+0.05−0.04+0.54
nt324
  • – noncarrier
1607+0.08+0.00−4.58
  • – heterozygous
409−0.07−0.02−1.27
  • – homozygous
30+0.00+0.02+5.85
nt414
  • – noncarrier
1062+0.13+0.02−0.67
  • – heterozygous
825+0.11+0.02−1.57
  • – homozygous
159−0.24−0.04+2.25
BIW = birth weight; CAE = calving ease; CWW = 205-day weaning weight.
Table
Table 5. The effect of different factors on the muscularity traits.
Table 5. The effect of different factors on the muscularity traits.
FactorsNMuscularity Traits
MSS
(Score)		MSB
(Score)		MST
(Score)		RST
(Score)		LTS
(Score)		OMP
(%)
Adjusted overall mean (±SE)20465.90 ±
0.11		5.39 ±
0.11		5.65 ±
0.12		5.54 ±
0.12		5.52 ±
0.11		55.86 ±
0.96
Deviation from the overall mean
Birth year of calves
  • – 2015
195+0.13+0.15+0.04−0.19+0.12+0.61
  • – 2016
51+0.06+0.14-0.25+0.00+0.20+0.57
  • – 2017
139+0.19+0.06+0.06+0.41+0.07+1.44
  • – 2018
296+0.09+0.01+0.22+0.36+0.08+1.40
  • – 2019
540−0.02-0.03-0.04+0.03+0.03+0.00
  • – 2020
597−0.21−0.18−0.05−0.24−0.28−2.06
  • – 2021
228−0.24−0.16+0.02−0.36−0.22−1.97
Sex of calves
  • – male
688+0.47+0.44+0.35+0.41+0.47+4.34
  • – female
1358−0.47−0.44−0.35−0.41−0.47−4.34
F94L
  • – noncarrier
1933+0.03+0.06−0.01+0.04+0.07+0.43
  • – heterozygous
113−0.03−0.06+0.01−0.04−0.07−0.43
Q204X
  • – noncarrier
1791−0.06−0.07−0.07−0.01−0.07−0.60
  • – heterozygous
255+0.06+0.07+0.07+0.01+0.07+0.60
nt267
  • – noncarrier
1981−0.04−0.02−0.11−0.03−0.04−0.46
  • – heterozygous
65+0.04+0.02+0.11+0.03+0.04+0.46
nt324
  • – noncarrier
1607−0.11−0.04+0.00+0.02+0.00−0.23
  • – heterozygous
409−0.07−0.01−0.06+0.05−0.04−0.29
  • – homozygous
30+0.17+0.05+0.06−0.06+0.04+0.52
nt414
  • – non carrier
1062−0.06−0.03−0.03−0.05+0.00−0.27
  • – heterozygous
825+0.03+0.03−0.03−0.01−0.02−0.01
  • – homozygous
159+0.03+0.00+0.05+0.06+0.01+0.28
MSS = muscle score of shoulder; MSB = muscle score of back; MST = muscle score of thigh; RST = roundness score of thigh; LTS = loin thickness score; OMP = overall muscle development percentage.
Table
Table 6. The phenotypic trend of the estimated traits.
Table 6. The phenotypic trend of the estimated traits.
TraitsSlope (bX)Intercept (a)Fitting
bSEpaSEpR2p
BIW (kg)+0.540.20<0.05−1042.524407.67<0.050.59<0.05
CAE (score)−0.010.02NS29.8231.44NS0.14NS
CWW (kg)+3.180.44<0.01−6146.81885.23<0.010.91<0.01
MSS (score)−0.060.02<0.05134.9038.18<0.050.70<0.05
MSB (score)−0.060.01<0.01122.6914.19<0.010.93<0.01
MST (score)+0.010.03NS−16.0159.19NS0.03NS
RST (score)−0.050.06NS103.80115.26NS0.13NS
LTS (score)−0.070.02<0.05150.6536.77<0.010.76<0.05
OMP (%)−0.510.20<0.051077.82401.49<0.050.57<0.05
BIW = birth weight; CAE = calving ease; CWW = 205-day weaning weight; MSS = muscle score of shoulder; MSB = muscle score of back; MST = muscle score of thigh; RST = roundness score of thigh; LTS = loin thickness score; OMP = overall muscle development percentage.
Table
Table 7. Phenotypic correlation values between the estimated traits.
Table 7. Phenotypic correlation values between the estimated traits.
rCAECWWMSSMSBMSTRSTLTSOMP
BIW* 0.13* 0.24* 0.13* 0.15* 0.08* 0.13* 0.13* 0.14
CAE 0.00* 0.09* 0.090.04* 0.08* 0.09* 0.09
CWW * 0.21* 0.20* 0.17* 0.24* 0.21* 0.24
MSS * 0.86* 0.61* 0.68* 0.80* 0.90
MSB * 0.63* 0.66* 0.82* 0.91
MST * 0.67* 0.62* 0.79
RST * 0.65* 0.82
LTS * 0.92
* p < 0.01; BIW = birth weight; CAE = calving ease; CWW = 205-day weaning weight; MSS = muscle score of shoulder; MSB = muscle score of back; MST = muscle score of thigh; RST = roundness score of thigh; LTS = loin thickness score; OMP = overall muscle development percentage.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Csürhés, T.; Szabó, F.; Holló, G.; Mikó, E.; Török, M.; Bene, S. Relationship between Some Myostatin Variants and Meat Production Related Calving, Weaning and Muscularity Traits in Charolais Cattle. Animals 2023, 13, 1895. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121895

AMA Style

Csürhés T, Szabó F, Holló G, Mikó E, Török M, Bene S. Relationship between Some Myostatin Variants and Meat Production Related Calving, Weaning and Muscularity Traits in Charolais Cattle. Animals. 2023; 13(12):1895. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121895

Chicago/Turabian Style

Csürhés, Tamás, Ferenc Szabó, Gabriella Holló, Edit Mikó, Márton Török, and Szabolcs Bene. 2023. "Relationship between Some Myostatin Variants and Meat Production Related Calving, Weaning and Muscularity Traits in Charolais Cattle" Animals 13, no. 12: 1895. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121895

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop