Skip to main content

Erratum to: Genetic diversity of a large set of horse breeds raised in France assessed by microsatellite polymorphism

The Original Article was published on 05 January 2009

Abstract

After the recent publication of our article (Leroy, Genetics Selection Evolution 2009 41:5), we found several errors in the published Table Three, concerning the computation of contribution to within-breed diversity (CW). We apologize to the readers for these errors, which are corrected in the present erratum.

Correction

Table Three (see Table 1 of this erratum) of our recently published paper [1] contains several errors. Here we present the corrected version of Table Three (see Table 2 of this erratum) and explain the new data. The authors regret the errors.

Table 1 Original and incorrect Table Three presented in Leroy et al. (2009)
Table 2 Corrected Table Three

Results

Partition of diversity

Errors concern the computation of the CW component developed by Ollivier and Foulley [2]. In the new version, CW ranged from -1 to 0.78. As aggregate diversity D is defined as a linear combination of CW and contribution to between-breed diversity, column D had also to be corrected, and ranged from -0.30 to 1.18. Consequently, the Pearson correlation between CW and ΔGD WS was found to be -1 (instead of -0.72 in the previous version), and the Pearson correlation between D and ΔGD T was found to be -0.59 (P = 0.008).

Discussion

Conservation priorities

In spite of the above modifications, the populations that contributed most to the total diversity, according to the approaches of Ollivier and Foulley [2] and Caballero and Toro [3], still remain mostly the non-endangered breeds (AR, PFS, TF) [instead of AR, PS, SF, TF in the previous version].

On the contrary, when considering the eight breeds classified as endangered or endangered/maintained by the FAO (ARD, AUX, BOUL, LAND, MER, POIT, POT, TDN) and the approach of Ollivier and Foulley [2], a change is noted for the breeds exhibiting the highest contributions to aggregate diversity D, which are now MER, LAND and POT, instead of BOUL, MER and POIT.

Finally, since the discussion on breed conservation is based on the use of several other methods and parameters, the above new results do not change our recommendations on which breeds specifically need support.

References

  1. Leroy G, Callede L, Verrier E, Mériaux JC, Ricard A, Danchin-Burge C, Rognon X: Genetic diversity of a large set of horse breeds raised in France assessed by microsatellite polymorphism. Genet Sel Evol. 2009, 41: 5-

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ollivier L, Foulley JL: Aggregate diversity: New approach combining within- and between-breed genetic diversity. Livest Prod Sci. 2005, 95: 247-254. 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Caballero A, Toro MA: Analysis of genetic diversity for the management of conserved subdivided populations. Conserv Genet. 2002, 3: 289-299. 10.1023/A:1019956205473.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Grégoire Leroy.

Additional information

The online version of the original article can be found at 10.1186/1297-9686-41-5

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Leroy, G., Callède, L., Verrier, E. et al. Erratum to: Genetic diversity of a large set of horse breeds raised in France assessed by microsatellite polymorphism. Genet Sel Evol 41, 31 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-41-31

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-41-31