Review

A Comparison of Old and Modern Type DNA Marker Technologies and Their Impact on Animal Breeding Programs

Volume: 6 Number: 2 June 30, 2016
  • Zühal Gündüz *
  • Onur Yılmaz
  • İbrahim Cemal
  • Osman Biçer
EN TR

A Comparison of Old and Modern Type DNA Marker Technologies and Their Impact on Animal Breeding Programs

Abstract

In recent years, molecular genetic technologies allowed to identify genetic structure in farm animals
have great advantages for animal breeding. Especially, in developed countries these methods began to be widely used
to assist animal breeding studies. It can be said that there are various molecular genetic markers. These markers can
be classifed by taking into consideration a number of factors such as the principle of the detection technique, type
of polymorphism. Although old type molecular genetic markers such as RFLP, AFLP, microsatellites are widely
used today, the information obtained from them is more limited than modern molecular genetic markers. SNP chip
technologies, which known as modern molecular markers and are one of the most important developments in the
molecular genetics feld, have provided genomic breeding value estimation and genomic selection in farm animals.
In this review, old and new types of molecular markers were compared and their usage in animal breeding were
discussed.
  

Keywords

References

  1. Acar H, 2010. Bioinformatic analyses in microsatellite-based genetic diversity of Turkish sheep breeds. Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans tezi, 147s.
  2. Agaviezor BO, Peters SO, Adefenwa MA, Yakubu A, Adebambo OA, Ozoje MO, Ikeobi CO, Wheto M, Ajayi OO, Amusan SA, Ekundayo OJ, Sanni TM, Okpeku M, Onasanya GO, De Donato M, Ilori BM, Kizilkaya K, Imumorin IG, 2012.
  3. Morphological and microsatellite DNA diversity of Nigerian indigenous sheep. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 3(1): 38.
  4. Ahmed MMM, 2005. Species identifcation in meat origin farm animals through DNA technology. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry, 21(1-2):13-24.
  5. Akey JM, Sosnoski D, Parra E, Dios S, Hiester K, Su B, Bonilla C, Jin L, Shriver MD, 2001. Melting Curve Analysis of SNPs (McSNP): A Gel-Free and Inexpensive Approach for SNP Genotyping. BioTechniques 30:358-367
  6. Ali BA, 2003. Genetics similarity among four breeds of sheep in Egypt detected by random amplifed polymorphic DNA markers. African Journal of Biotechnology, 2(7): 194-197.
  7. Alvarez I, Capote J, Traore A, Fonseca N, Pérez K, Cuervo M, Fernandez I, Goyache F, 2012. Genetic relationships of the Cuban hair sheep inferred from microsatellite polymorphism. Small Ruminant Research, 104(1-3): 89– 93.
  8. Arora RJ, Bhatia S, Mishra BP, Jain A, Prakash B, 2011. Diversity analysis of sheep breeds from Southern peninsular and Eastern regions of India. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 43(2):401–408.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

-

Journal Section

Review

Authors

Zühal Gündüz * This is me

İbrahim Cemal This is me

Osman Biçer This is me

Publication Date

June 30, 2016

Submission Date

February 4, 2016

Acceptance Date

April 28, 2016

Published in Issue

Year 2016 Volume: 6 Number: 2

APA
Gündüz, Z., Yılmaz, O., Cemal, İ., & Biçer, O. (2016). A Comparison of Old and Modern Type DNA Marker Technologies and Their Impact on Animal Breeding Programs. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, 6(2), 175-180. https://izlik.org/JA86EU93BK
AMA
1.Gündüz Z, Yılmaz O, Cemal İ, Biçer O. A Comparison of Old and Modern Type DNA Marker Technologies and Their Impact on Animal Breeding Programs. J. Inst. Sci. and Tech. 2016;6(2):175-180. https://izlik.org/JA86EU93BK
Chicago
Gündüz, Zühal, Onur Yılmaz, İbrahim Cemal, and Osman Biçer. 2016. “A Comparison of Old and Modern Type DNA Marker Technologies and Their Impact on Animal Breeding Programs”. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology 6 (2): 175-80. https://izlik.org/JA86EU93BK.
EndNote
Gündüz Z, Yılmaz O, Cemal İ, Biçer O (June 1, 2016) A Comparison of Old and Modern Type DNA Marker Technologies and Their Impact on Animal Breeding Programs. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology 6 2 175–180.
IEEE
[1]Z. Gündüz, O. Yılmaz, İ. Cemal, and O. Biçer, “A Comparison of Old and Modern Type DNA Marker Technologies and Their Impact on Animal Breeding Programs”, J. Inst. Sci. and Tech., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 175–180, June 2016, [Online]. Available: https://izlik.org/JA86EU93BK
ISNAD
Gündüz, Zühal - Yılmaz, Onur - Cemal, İbrahim - Biçer, Osman. “A Comparison of Old and Modern Type DNA Marker Technologies and Their Impact on Animal Breeding Programs”. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology 6/2 (June 1, 2016): 175-180. https://izlik.org/JA86EU93BK.
JAMA
1.Gündüz Z, Yılmaz O, Cemal İ, Biçer O. A Comparison of Old and Modern Type DNA Marker Technologies and Their Impact on Animal Breeding Programs. J. Inst. Sci. and Tech. 2016;6:175–180.
MLA
Gündüz, Zühal, et al. “A Comparison of Old and Modern Type DNA Marker Technologies and Their Impact on Animal Breeding Programs”. Journal of the Institute of Science and Technology, vol. 6, no. 2, June 2016, pp. 175-80, https://izlik.org/JA86EU93BK.
Vancouver
1.Zühal Gündüz, Onur Yılmaz, İbrahim Cemal, Osman Biçer. A Comparison of Old and Modern Type DNA Marker Technologies and Their Impact on Animal Breeding Programs. J. Inst. Sci. and Tech. [Internet]. 2016 Jun. 1;6(2):175-80. Available from: https://izlik.org/JA86EU93BK