Annual trends in heterozygosity of Korea native cattle (Hanwoo) based on microsatellite markers

Article information

Anim Biosci. 2026;39.250594
Publication date (electronic) : 2026 March 11
doi : https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.250594
1Animal Genetics & Breeding Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Cheonan, Korea
2Hanwoo Improvement Center for National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (NACF), Seosan, Korea
*Corresponding Author: Mina Park, Tel: +82-41-580-3355, E-mail: mina0412@korea.kr
Received 2025 August 18; Revised 2025 October 29; Accepted 2026 February 8.

Abstract

Objective

High-qulity Hanwoo (Korean native cattle) semen yields calves with better genetics, significantly enhancing farm profits. However, the repeated use of this semen can reduce heterozygosity and genetic diversity in the Hanwoo population, potentially compromising parentage verification accuracy. This study was conducted to analyze large-scale microsatellite (MS) marker data to evaluate the heterozygosity of Hanwoo cows and the discriminatory power of the MS marker set currently used for parentage verification.

Methods

The study involved Hanwoo cows from farms participating in the Hanwoo cow improvement project, utilizing MS marker data from 778,544 heads collected for parentage verification since 2012. Heterozygosity (HObs), expected heterozygosity (HExp), polymorphism information content (PIC), and the inbreeding coefficient within populations (FIS) were estimated using R version 4.3.3 and Cervus version 3.0.7.

Results

The results showed average values of HObs, HExp, and PIC were 0.771, 0.768, and 0.736, respectively. Heterozygosity by marker suggested a gradual decrease in variability for most markers post-2010. After 2010, the analysis of over 10,000 animals led to a decrease in variance of sample statistics, improving the accuracy of estimates. The FIS values suggest that the population is approaching Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and that inbreeding risk is being effectively managed through planned breeding programs. To assess trends in genetic differentiation over time, we grouped individuals by birth year (2001–23) and calculated pairwise genetic differentiation values. The values ranged from 0.0003 to 0.0081, indicating low genetic differentiation and suggesting temporal genetic stability.

Conclusion

This study shows that the Hanwoo population has high genetic diversity and low fixation, and that the current MS marker set remains reliable for future parentage verification.

INTRODUCTION

The Hanwoo, a native cattle breed in Korea, is economically, nutritionally, and culturally important in Korea. Known for its docile temperament, adaptability to temperature variations, and high productivity, the Hanwoo has systematically improved owing to national institutions implemented in the 1960s. The genotype of the Hanwoo has been improved by selecting Korean proven bull numbers (KPNs), which require an accurate construction of pedigrees. Although the current Hanwoo traceability system employs unique identification numbers to manage the information of individuals, it cannot verify an individual’s identification or perform parentage verification. To overcome this limitation, microsatellite (MS) markers have been utilized to verify parentage [13]. Animals develop unique genotypes through meiosis during gametogenesis, and MS markers offer a powerful tool for identifying individuals by detecting differences in repetitive base sequences [4,5]. This technique has facilitated the development of species-specific identification marker sets for individuals, both domestically and internationally. In Korea, a system of identifying individuals and verifying parentage was established using MS markers proposed by the International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR) and the International Society for Animal Genetics (ISAG) [6,7]. However, with the availability of high-quality reference genomes and commercial SNP arrays for Hanwoo cattle, SNP-based parentage verification has become internationally recognized as a more accurate and standardized approach, as recommended by ICAR and ISAG [8]. In line with this shift, recent studies have highlighted the expanding use of genome-wide data in livestock improvement, including the incorporation of imputed SNP genotypes into genomic-polygenic evaluations and the use of whole-genome resequencing [9,10]. However, in Korea, routine SNP-based testing remains limited because most cattle farms have restricted access to SNP genotyping services. Due to its lower cost and faster turnaround time, MS analysis continues to be the most practical and cost-effective approach for parentage verification in Hanwoo cattle.

Through this technique, Hanwoo pedigree information could be adequately managed. This improvement in pedigree management has greatly increased the accuracy of genetic evaluations of the Hanwoo, resulting in a considerable preference for the KPNs of bulls that have semen with high genetic merit. Because calves produced from semen with superior genetic potential directly increase the income derived from farming, farmers strongly prefer semen from bulls with highly ranking KPNs. As a result, the carcass performance of steers, which are the primary animals used for beef production, has improved markedly over the past decade. The average carcass weight increased from 425 kg in 2014 to 475.8 kg in 2024, and the mean marbling score improved from 5.5 to 6.6 point during the same period [11,12]. These results demonstrate that continuous genetic improvement has been achieved in the Hanwoo population. However, previous studies have reported that an increased preference for and repeated use of specific KPNs can lead to a reduction in effective population size, increased genetic drift, and limited genetic improvement, potentially resulting in population extinction in extreme cases [13,14].

To prevent such negative effects, regular monitoring of the genetic diversity in Hanwoo populations is crucial. MS markers are widely used not only for individual identification and parentage verification but also to study genetic diversity [1518]. Currently employed MS marker sets can the track temporal changes in the genetic diversity and heterozygosity of the Hanwoo. Therefore, this study analyzed MS marker information collected through the Hanwoo cow improvement project since 2012, aiming to identify temporal trends in the genetic diversity and heterozygosity of the Hanwoo population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Animals and microsatellite marker information

The test population used in the analysis consists of a group from the Hanwoo cow improvement project, which was initiated to promote cow improvement in the farms through pedigree management, growth, genomic analysis and genetic evaluation of Hanwoo cows. For the analysis, we used MS marker information from 969,597 heads collected for parentage verification from 2013 to 2023. To enhance the reliability of pedigree, parentage verification using MS markers has been routinely implemented in the Hanwoo breeding program since 2012. Pedigree inconsistencies were corrected based on MS genotyping results, and only animals with confirmed and error-free parentage information (n = 969,597) were retained for the present analysis. The MS markers used in the analysis include 11 dinucleotide repeat allele markers currently being used in the Hanwoo traceability system and 2 sex determination markers. These markers were selected based on national traceability standards and have been consistently applied in large-scale parentage testing. The MS marker panel is also aligned with the recommendations of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the ISAG–FAO Advisory Group, which proposed 30 standard MS markers for genetic diversity studies in major livestock species, including cattle [19].

Data preprocessing

The test population consisted of MS marker information from 969,597 heads (i). The data preprocessing was conducted in the following order (Table 1). Removed: 39,517 heads with missing allele values (ii), 377 heads with outlier allele values beyond the Genetrack ver. 2 range (iii), and 114,982 heads with sex determination marker anomalies (individuals with values other than X or Y, those with missing values, and individuals whose sex marker information did not match their registered sex in the Korea Animal Improvement Association database) (iv). 2,229 heads were added from duplicated parentage verification where analysis was possible (v). And 147 heads were removed from birth year groups containing fewer than 100 heads (vi). Finally, 778,544 heads (i–ii–iii–iv+v–vi) were selected for the analysis. Table 2 shows the distribution of the analyzed population by birth year. The data preprocessing procedure was performed using R [20].

Pre-processing procedure and results of raw data for analysis

Number of animals used in analysis by birth year

Statistical analysis

Basic analyses including allele frequency, HObs, HExp, and PIC of MS markers were performed using Cervus ver. 3.0.7 [21]. Subsequently, the data used in the Cervus analysis was converted to Genepop ver. 4.7.3 [22] format, and FIS, FST [23,24], was estimated using the hierfstat package in R.

(1) HObs=No.ofheterozygousn
(2) HExp=1-i=1npi2
(3) PIC=1-i=1npi2-i=1n-1j=t+1n2pi2pj2

Here, HObs is the observed heterozygosity and HExp is the expected heterozygosity, where n is number of alleles and pi is the frequency of the ith alleles. PIC is the polymorphic information content, where n is the number of alleles, pi is the frequency of the ith alleles, pj is the frequency of the jth alleles.

(4) FIS=HExp-HObsHExp
(5) pairwise FST=θi,j=HTi,j-Hsi,jHTi,j

FIS is the inbreeding coefficient within populations. Pairwise FST indicates the genetic differentiation between two populations and is estimated using the θi,j statistic as proposed by Weir and Cockerham [24]. θ=aa+b+c, a is between population component, b is within population component, c represents the sampling error. HTi,j refers to the expected total heterozygosity across populations i and j, and HSi,j is the average expected heterozygosity within those two populations. Non-exclusion probabilities (NE-1P, NE-2P, NE-PP, NE-I, and NE-SI) were calculated based on allele frequencies from the entire population using Cervus ver. 3.0.7 [21]. The identification accuracy for each index was derived as 1–NE, representing the probability of correctly identifying or excluding individuals.

RESULTS

Table 3 presents the basic results obtained by analyzing the results from the tested population, including the number of alleles per MS marker (k), as well as the HObs, HExp, PIC, and FIS values. A high level of polymorphism was observed across all analyzed markers, with an average number of alleles of 15.636 per locus (k). The TGLA122 marker showed the highest number of alleles, with 28 alleles, whereas the TGLA126 marker exhibited the lowest, with 9 alleles. The mean HObs and HExp values were 0.771 and 0.768, respectively. The TGLA53 marker showed the highest level of heterozygosity, at 0.891 and 0.890, respectively, whereas the TGLA126 marker showed the lowest heterozygosity level, at 0.669 and 0.665, respectively. Meanwhile, the average PIC value was 0.736, with TGLA53 and TGLA126 showing the highest and lowest values, respectively, which is consistent with the HObs and HExp results. The FIS value, indicating the inbreeding coefficient of a population, had a mean of −0.003, and negative values were observed across all markers. TGLA53 exhibited the highest value (−0.0014), whereas TGLA126 showed the lowest value (−0.0053).

Basic analysis of microsatellite markers in test population

The results obtained by using 11 MS markers to calculate probabilities for individual identification and parentage verification are presented in Table 4. NE-1P, NE-2P, NE-PP, NE-I, and NE-SI represented the combined non-exclusion probabilities of the first parent, second parent, parent pair, identity, and sibling identity, respectively. The reliability of individual identification and parentage verification increased as these values approached zero. Furthermore, analyses of the performance of individual markers revealed that the TGLA53 marker had the lowest error probabilities across all evaluation indices, indicating that it was the most effective marker for identification. Its error probabilities for NE-1P, NE-2P, NE-PP, NE-I, and NE-SI were 0.366, 0.223, 0.078, 0.022, and 0.311, respectively. Meanwhile, the TGLA126 marker exhibited relatively high error probabilities across most indices.

Analysis results of microsatellite markers identification power in test population

An analysis combining all MS markers revealed high reliability for both individual identification and parentage verification. Non-exclusion probabilities (NE values) close to zero indicate higher exclusion power, meaning that unrelated or incorrect individuals are more likely to be successfully excluded. Accordingly, identification accuracy, calculated as 1–NE, approaches 1 when the marker set is highly discriminative. In this study, identification accuracies were 0.996914 (error probability: 0.003086), 0.9999349 (0.0000651), 0.99999991 (0.00000009), and 0.9999716 (0.0000284) for NE-1P, NE-2P, NE-PP, and NE-SI, respectively. Notably, the power for individual identification showed exceptionally high accuracy, at 0.99999999999924 (error probability: 0.00000000000076). These results suggest that the MS marker set used in this study was highly robust and reliable for both individual identification and parentage verification.

Figure 1 illustrates the temporal changes in HObs, HExp, and PIC values of the MS markers according to birth year from 2001 to 2023. Overall, high levels of heterozygosity were maintained across all markers, with most values ranging between 0.6 and 0.9. During the early period (2001–2007), several markers, including BM1824, BM2113, and ETH225, exhibited notable year-to-year fluctuations, with ETH225 showing the most pronounced variation. This instability is likely attributable to the relatively small number of genotyped animals during those years (Table 1), which may have amplified annual variation. From 2008 to 2015, heterozygosity values across most markers became more consistent, and after 2015 they remained largely stable, indicating a gradual stabilization of genetic diversity within the Hanwoo population. Among the 11 markers analyzed, TGLA122, TGLA227, and TGLA53 consistently exhibited the highest heterozygosity (HObs and HExp: 0.85–0.90), reflecting strong allelic diversity at these loci. In contrast, TGLA126 displayed the lowest heterozygosity (0.65–0.70), although it consistently remained above 0.6 throughout the study period, showing only minor temporal variation. BM1824 and ETH10 showed slight increases in heterozygosity over time, whereas INRA023 exhibited a modest decline after 2015 but still maintained a relatively high level overall. Taken together, these findings indicate that the genetic diversity of the Hanwoo population experienced moderate fluctuations in the early 2000s—largely due to smaller sample sizes—but has remained stable since 2008, showing no significant long-term loss of diversity between 2001 and 2023.

Figure 1

Annual changes in genetic diversity parameters (expected heterozygosity, HExp; observed heterozygosity, HObs; polymorphic information content, PIC) of Hanwoo cattle by birth year (2001–2023) based on 13 microsatellite markers. Each line represents the value of a specific marker across birth years. The three panels show (top) HExp, (middle) HObs, and (bottom) PIC, respectively. Symbols and colors correspond to different microsatellite loci as indicated in the legend.

To assess temporal trends in genetic differentiation (FST), we divided the population by birth year from 2001 to 2023 and compared them across years. The results are presented in Table 5. As shown in Table 5, the pairwise FST values ranged from 0.0003 to 0.0081, indicating an overall low level of genetic differentiation between birth years. The highest FST value (0.0081) was observed between the 2002 and 2023 birth years, while the lowest FST value (0) occurred between 2001 and 2002. These findings suggest that the genetic structure of the Hanwoo population has remained generally stable, likely due to consistent nationwide breeding programs. Nevertheless, FST values tended to increase slightly as the interval between birth years widened, which may reflect the cumulative effects of genetic drift or selection over generations.

Pairwise estimates of genetic differentiation (FST) by birth year

Changes in the FIS values of the 11 MS markers for the period of 2001 to 2023 were analyzed and are presented Figure 2. Most markers tended to maintain FIS values close to zero, suggesting that the tested population approached Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium. While significant variations existed among some markers during this period, the values gradually stabilized over time. The ETH225 marker exhibited the lowest FIS value (−0.1012) in 2003, but this value subsequently rapidly approached zero, reaching levels similar to those of the other markers. After 2005, most markers’ FIS values fluctuated within the narrow range of −0.02 to 0.02. The BM2113 and TGLA53 markers initially showed positive values, which generally shifted toward slightly negative values closer to zero over time. Toward 2023, most markers exhibited negative FIS values, with the ETH225 and TGLA126 markers showing highly negative values.

Figure 2

Annual changes in inbreeding coefficient (FIS) of Hanwoo cattle from 2001 to 2023 based on 13 microsatellite markers. Each colored line represents the FIS value estimated for a specific marker in a given birth year. Positive values indicate an excess of homozygosity, whereas negative values indicate an excess of heterozygosity relative to Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.

DISCUSSION

The HObs, HExp, and PIC values by marker obtained in this study indicate that the tested population maintained stable genetic diversity (Table 3). The HObs and HExp values were similar across markers (>0.6), indicating high genetic diversity within the population. Previous studies on Hanwoo cattle showed results similar to those in this study. Specifically, Jin et al [25] reported HObs, HExp, and PIC values of 0.760, 0.757, and 0.722, respectively, after using 11 MS markers on Hanwoo populations, while Shin et al [26] reported values of 0.773, 0.764, and 0.727, respectively, for KPNs. The HExp values obtained in the present study met the criterion of 0.3–0.8 proposed by Takezaki and Nei [27], suggesting that the markers were suitable for diversity analysis. Regarding the PIC values used to assess genetic diversity, markers are considered highly polymorphic and most suitable when the PIC value exceeds 0.50, moderately suitable when the PIC value ranges between 0.25 and 0.50, and uninformative when the PIC value is less than 0.25 [28,29]. These criteria are commonly used when establishing MS marker sets for various livestock species [1,4,30]. Furthermore, analysis of marker discriminatory power revealed a notable difference among the indices (Table 4). The relatively higher error probability observed for NE-1P (0.003086) compared to other indices (NE-2P, NE-PP, NE-I, NE-SI) can be attributed to the inherent limitation of using only one parent’s genotype in parentage verification. While NE-PP utilizes both parental genotypes, NE-1P is based solely on either the sire or the dam, thereby increasing the likelihood that a non-parent may not be excluded. In previous studies, Weng et al [31] and Kim et al [32] reported NE-1P values of 0.0289 and 0.02464, respectively—both substantially higher than the value obtained in this study (0.003086). Moreover, the NE-2P, NE-PP, NE-I, and NE-SI values in this study were also lower than those reported in previous studies [3335], further demonstrating the superior reliability and discriminatory capacity of the selected MS marker set. This exceptionally low NE-PP value (0.00000009) underscores the importance of obtaining complete parental genotypes to minimize error and improve parentage verification accuracy. Based on the findings, the MS marker set currently used in the system of identifying Hanwoo individuals and verifying their parentage is appropriate and reliable for analyzing Hanwoo genetics.

A notable result of the heterozygosity level by birth year was that most markers maintained a high heterozygosity level, without significant decreases over time (Figure 1). Generally, a high level of heterozygosity indicates a low inbreeding risk within a population. Meanwhile, the FIS value ranges from −1 to 1, where higher positive values indicate more inbreeding and lower genetic diversity, whereas lower negative values indicate excessive heterozygosity due to artificial insemination and planned mating performed to avoid inbreeding. Values closer to zero indicate closer proximity to Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium, at which point allele frequencies remain stable over time [23]. This study obtained slightly negative values close to zero for all markers (Figure 2), similar to the findings reported in previous studies conducted on European, Asian, and African cattle breeds [3639]. These results suggest that effective breeding management can be achieved through planned mating combinations, while avoiding inbreeding risks. And to assess temporal trends in genetic differentiation, we divided the population by birth year from 2001 to 2023 and compared them across years (Table 5). FST values range from 0 to 1, where values closer to 0 indicate little genetic differentiation, and values closer to 1 indicate greater differentiation [24,40]. The resulting values ranged from 0.0003 to 0.0081, indicating a generally low level of genetic differentiation among population across years. This suggests that the genetic structure of the population has remained largely stable over time. However, FST values tended to increase slightly as the interval between birth years widened, implying a gradual accumulation of genetic differentiation across generations [41]. Nonetheless, the overall FST values were very low, demonstrating that ongoing pedigree management and selection strategies have been effective in maintaining genetic diversity.

After 2010, the level of heterozygosity for all markers and populations varied minimally, maintaining a stable state (Figure 1, Table 5), which demonstrated the importance of adequate pedigree management and of farmers’ awareness of the risks associated with inbreeding. The number of animals analyzed increased significantly over time (Table 2). Before 2005, fewer than 1,000 animals were analyzed annually, but since 2010, this number increased to more than 10,000 annually. This substantial increase in sample size may be directly linked to reductions in heterozygosity variability (Figure 2). The Hanwoo cow improvement project, initiated to improve cows on farms, conducts parentage verification for 17,300 animals annually and, since 2012, has continuously managed information by verifying pedigrees and managing parentage verification results by using an MS marker set [12,42]. In large samples, according to statistical principles, as the variance of sample statistics decreases and the accuracy of estimates improves, estimates of the heterozygosity level across years become increasingly similar. From 2001 to 2009, the heterozygosity and FIS values varied considerably, but this variability decreased significantly after 2010. This suggested that, as the size of the analyzed population increased, the statistical power and reliability of the estimates improved.

Continuous consulting by institutions that work toward improving Hanwoo populations, as well as the provision of mating plan guidelines, have increased the importance of parentage verification, leading to a higher number of animals being analyzed. As a result, a high level of heterozygosity and low level of genetic fixation have been observed, as shown in this study. The stability and temporarily increasing trend of the heterozygosity level observed for most markers after 2010 were considered results of adequate pedigree management achieved by emphasizing the importance of parentage verification, as well as by continuously monitoring pedigrees and implementing planned mating programs. The development of a mating plan is essential for maintaining both a high level of genetic diversity and low inbreeding rates and for establishing long-term improvement plans [43]. The results of this study demonstrated that improvements in cows have been achieved not only by enhancing productivity but also by maintaining genetic diversity, and the findings are anticipated to serve as important reference data for establishing future breeding programs or conservation strategies.

CONCLUSION

The construction of accurate pedigrees for the Hanwoo has improved the accuracy of genetic evaluations, resulting in a preference for semen from highly ranked proven bulls, as calves produced from semen with superior genetic potential directly increase farm profitability. However, excessive use of specific KPNs may cause reductions in effective population sizes, along with genetic drift and limited genetic improvement, which may result in a decrease in genetic diversity in the long term. This study analyzed MS marker information collected through the Hanwoo cow improvement project since 2012, aimed at identifying trends in the genetic diversity and heterozygosity of the Hanwoo population. The average HObs, HExp, and PIC values were 0.771, 0.768, and 0.736, respectively, with HObs and HExp being highly similar across all markers, and the PIC values exceeding 0.6. An examination of the heterozygosity level of markers according to birth year revealed that, since 2008, the variability gradually decreased for most markers. After 2010, as the number of animals analyzed increased to over 10,000, the variance in the sample statistics decreased, indicating an improvement in the accuracy of estimates. The heterozygosity and FIS values varied considerably from 2001 to 2009 but stabilized or increased after 2010. Additionally, toward 2023, the FIS values generally showed negative values closer to 0. To assess temporal trends in genetic differentiation, we divided the population by birth year from 2001 to 2023 and compared them across years. the pairwise FST values ranged from 0.0003 to 0.0081, indicating an overall low level of genetic differentiation between birth years.

Based on the results of this study, it is concluded that the maintenance of low genetic fixation and high genetic diversity has been achieved through continuous parentage verification and through planned mating programs implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs via the Hanwoo cow improvement project. The MS marker set that has long been used is expected to remain sufficiently reliable for future analyses of individual identification and parentage verification performed for the Hanwoo.

Notes

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

AUTHORS’ CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization: Kim E, Park M.

Data curation: Kim E, Kim R, Jung W.

Formal analysis: Kim E, Seong H, Ko H.

Methodology: Kim E, Seong H, Lee S.

Software: Dang C, Cha J, Lee J.

Validation: Kim E, Park W, Alam M.

Investigation: Kim E, Ryu E, Lee C.

Writing - original draft: Kim E, Chang H, Lee D.

Writing - review & editing: Kim E, Dang C, Cha J, Chang H, Seong H, Lee S, Park W, Lee J, Ko H, Alam M, Lee D, Ryu E, Lee C, Kim R, Jung W, Park M.

FUNDING

This work was performed with the support of the Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (“Project title: Improvement of national livestock breeding system and advancement of evaluation technology, Project No. PJ01670301”) from the Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the institutions and personnel involved in data collection and management for their support in providing pedigree and microsatellite genotype data used in this study.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

Not applicable.

ETHICS APPROVAL

Not applicable.

DECLARATION OF GENERATIVE AI

No AI tools were used in this article.

DATA AVAILABILITY

Upon reasonable request, the datasets of this study can be available from the corresponding author.

References

1. Kim HR, Lee JW, Go MJ, 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.
2. Cho BW, Jung JH, Kim SW, et al. Establishment of genetic characteristics and individual identification system using microsatellite loci in Jeju native horse. J Life Sci 2007; 17 :1441 –6. https://doi.org/10.5352/JLS.2007.17.10.1441.
3. Seo KS, Cho YM, Lee HK. Development of network system for the application of HACCP in livestock production stage. Agroinformatics J 2000; 1 :1 –4.
4. Roh HJ, Kim SC, Cho CY, et al. Estimating genetic diversity and population structure of 22 chicken breeds in Asia using microsatellite markers. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci 2020; 33 :1896 –904. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.19.0958.
5. Câmara TS, Nunes JF, Diniz FM, Silva FM, Araújo AM. Genetic diversity and relatedness between Canindé and British alpine goat breeds in Northeastern Brazil accessed by microsatellite markers. Genet Mol Res 2017; 16 :10 –4238. https://doi.org/10.4238/gmr16019569.
6. Lee KH, Seo KS, Choi TJ, et al. Comparison for genetic diversity between regional Hanwoo (Korean cattle) brand group using microsatellite loci. J Anim Sci Technol 2008; 50 :167 –76. https://doi.org/10.5187/JAST.2008.50.2.167.
7. Lee SH, Kang HC, Lee SS, et al. Development of a microsatellite marker set for the individual identification and parentage verification of Korean native black goats. J Life Sci 2020; 30 :912 –8. https://doi.org/10.5352/JLS.2020.30.10.912.
8. Flanagan SP, Jones AG. The future of parentage analysis: from microsatellites to SNPs and beyond. Mol Ecol 2019; 28 :544 –67. https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14988.
9. Jattawa D, Suwanasopee T, Elzo MA, Koonawootrittriron S. Inclusion of imputed genotypes from non-genotyped dairy cattle in a Thai multibreed genomic-polygenic evaluation. Anim Biosci 2025; 38 :419 –30. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.24.0317.
10. Kim J, Kim J, Cho E, et al. Selection signature analysis using whole genome resequencing data reveals candidate genes for white plumage color in Korean native ducks. Anim Biosci 2025; 38 :1594 –604. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.24.0718.
11. Korea Institute for Animal Products Quality Evaluation (KAPE). 2024 Animal products grading statistical yearbook [Internet] KAPE; 2025. [cited 2025 Dec 31]. Available from: https://www.ekape.or.kr/board/view.do?menuId=menu138629&boardNo=37612&dmlType=SELECT&pageIndex=1&pageUnit=10&categoryNo=&tabIndex=&searchCondition=SUBJECT&searchKeyword=.
12. National Institute of Animal Science (NIAS). 2024. Livestock genetic improvement data [Internet] NIAS; c2024. [cited 2025 Dec 31]. Available from: https://www.nias.go.kr/front/yrLvstckImprvData.do?cmCode=M231130170809462.
13. Weigel KA. Controlling inbreeding in modern breeding programs. J Dairy Sci 2001; 84 :E177 –84. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(01)70213-5.
14. Heffner EL, Sorrells ME, Jannink JL. Genomic selection for crop improvement. Crop Sci 2009; 49 :1 –12. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2008.08.0512.
15. Gororo E, Makuza SM, Chatiza FP, Chidzwondo F, Sanyika TW. Genetic diversity in Zimbabwean Sanga cattle breeds using microsatellite markers. S Afr J Anim Sci 2018; 48 :128 –41. https://doi/org/10.4314/sajas.v48i1.15.
16. Djimènou D, Adoukonou-Sagbadja H, Dayo GK, Chrysostome CAAM, Koudande DO. Genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationships within local pigs in southern Benin. Trop Anim Health Prod 2021; 53 :434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-021-02857-2.
17. Dayo GK, Houaga I, Somda MB, et al. Morphological and microsatellite DNA diversity of Djallonké sheep in Guinea-Bissau. BMC Genom Data 2022; 23 (3) https://doi.org/10.1186/s12863-021-01009-7.
18. Zhang T, Guo J, Qin G, et al. Microsatellite analysis revealed the genetic diversity and population structure of 18 native black goat breeds in China. Anim Biosci 2026; 39 :250224. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.25.0224.
19. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO. FAO animal production and health guidelines No 9 molecular genetic characterization of animal genetic resources [Internet] FAO; 2011. [cited 2025 Feb 14]. Available from: https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i2413e.
20. The R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing [Internet] R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. [cited 2025 Dec 31]. Available from: https://cran.r-project.org/doc/manuals/r-release/fullrefman.pdf.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Nei M. F-statistics and analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Ann Hum Genet 1977; 41 :225 –33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1977.tb01918.x.
24. Weir BS, Cockerham CC. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 1984; 38 :1358 –70. https://doi.org/10.2307/2408641.
25. Jin S, Won JI, Park B, et al. Genetic diversity analysis of the line-breeding Hanwoo population using 11 microsatellite markers. Korean J Agric Sci 2023; 50 :363 –72. https://doi.org/10.7744/kjoas.500302.
26. Shin DH, Kim DH, Oh JD. Analysis of genetic diversity and structural changes in Hanwoo proven bulls population. Ann Anim Resour Sci 2018; 29 :142 –9. https://doi.org/10.12718/AARS.2018.29.4.142.
27. Takezaki N, Nei M. Genetic distances and reconstruction of phylogenetic trees from microsatellite DNA. Genetics 1996; 144 :389 –99. https://doi.org/10.1093/genetics/144.1.389.
28. 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.
29. Serrote CML, Reiniger LRS, Silva KB, Rabaiolli MS, Stefanel CM. Determining the polymorphism information content of a molecular marker. Gene 2020; 726 :144175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2019.144175.
30. Chun SW, Lee JW, Ahn JY. Development and characterization of novel microsatellite markers in Tilia amurensis Rupr. using next-generation sequencing. Mol Biol Rep 2022; 49 :1637 –41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-021-07035-z.
31. Weng Z, Yang Y, Wang X, et al. Parentage analysis in giant grouper (Epinephelus lanceolatus) using microsatellite and SNP markers from genotyping-by-sequencing data. Genes 2021; 12 :1042. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12071042.
32. Kim KS, Noh CH, Moon SJ, Han SH, Bang IC. Development of novel tetra- and trinucleotide microsatellite markers for giant grouper Epinephelus lanceolatus using 454 pyrosequencing. Mol Biol Rep 2016; 43 :541 –8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-016-3980-4.
33. Margeta P, Skorput D, Salamon D, et al. 12-Plex highly polymorphic microsatellite marker set for parentage analysis in Banija spotted pigs. J Cent Eur Agric 2019; 20 :50 –4. https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/20.1.2407.
34. Yu GC, Tang QZ, Long KR, Che TD, Li MZ, Shuai SR. Effectiveness of microsatellite and single nucleotide polymorphism markers for parentage analysis in European domestic pigs. Genet Mol Res 2015; 14 :1362 –70. https://doi.org/10.4238/2015.February.13.15.
35. Costa V, Pérez-González J, Santos P, et al. Microsatellite markers for identification and parentage analysis in the European wild boar (Sus scrofa). BMC Res Notes 2012; 5 :479. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-479.
36. Jin S, Won JI, Kim HJ, et al. Polymorphism analysis of tri- and tetranucleotide repeat microsatellite markers in Hanwoo cattle. J Amin Sci Technol 2024; 66 :717 –25. https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2024.e10.
37. Martín-Burriel I, Rodellar C, Lenstra JA, et al. Genetic diversity and relationships of endangered Spanish cattle breeds. J Hered 2007; 98 :687 –91. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/esm096.
38. Pham LD, Do DN, Binh NT, et al. Assessment of genetic diversity and population structure of Vietnamese indigenous cattle populations by microsatellites. Livest Sci 2013; 155 :17 –22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2013.04.006.
39. Ndiaye NP, Sow A, Dayo GK, Ndiaye S, Sawadogo GJ, Sembène M. Genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationships in local cattle breeds of Senegal based on autosomal microsatellite markers. Vet World 2015; 8 :994 –1005. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2015.994-1005.
40. Hall SJG. Genetic differentiation among livestock breeds: values for Fst. Animals 2022; 12 :1115. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12091115.
41. Kitada S, Nakamichi R, Kishino H. Understanding population structure in an evolutionary context: population-specific FST and pairwise FST. G3 Genes Genomes Genet 2021; 11 :jkab316. https://doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkab316.
42. Koo YM, Alam M, Park M, et al. Estimation of pedigree completeness index, inbreeding coefficient and effective population size of breeding stock for Hanwoo cows. J Anim Breed Genom 2021; 5 :73 –83. https://doi.org/10.12972/jabng.20210007.
43. Nguyen AT, Kövér G, Farkas J, Bokor Á, Tóth P, Nagy I. Analysis of genetic variability and population structure of the Mangalica pig breed using pedigree data. Livest Sci 2023; 273 :105265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2023.105265.

Article information Continued

Figure 1

Annual changes in genetic diversity parameters (expected heterozygosity, HExp; observed heterozygosity, HObs; polymorphic information content, PIC) of Hanwoo cattle by birth year (2001–2023) based on 13 microsatellite markers. Each line represents the value of a specific marker across birth years. The three panels show (top) HExp, (middle) HObs, and (bottom) PIC, respectively. Symbols and colors correspond to different microsatellite loci as indicated in the legend.

Figure 2

Annual changes in inbreeding coefficient (FIS) of Hanwoo cattle from 2001 to 2023 based on 13 microsatellite markers. Each colored line represents the FIS value estimated for a specific marker in a given birth year. Positive values indicate an excess of homozygosity, whereas negative values indicate an excess of heterozygosity relative to Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium.

Table 1

Pre-processing procedure and results of raw data for analysis

Type Number of animal
Raw data 969,597 (i)
Missing allele value 39,517 (ii)
Allele value outlier 377 (iii)
Sex allele outlier No X, Y value 29
No has sex marker 91,275
Mismatch sex marker 23,678
Total 114,982 (iv)
Duplicate barcode ID QC
 Duplicate barcode ID 2 duplication 18,396
3 duplication 489
 Combining duplicate barcode ID for analysis data 2 duplication 2,226
3 duplication 3
Total 2,229 (v)
Remove if less than 100 heads 147 (vi)
Analysis data A–B–C–D+E–F 778,544

Table 2

Number of animals used in analysis by birth year

Birth year Frequency

Cow (head) Bull (head) Total (head) Total (%)
2001 107 0 107 0.01
2002 198 0 198 0.03
2003 342 0 342 0.04
2004 546 1 547 0.07
2005 1,000 1 1,001 0.13
2006 1,672 0 1,672 0.21
2007 2,650 2 2,652 0.34
2008 4,227 2 4,229 0.54
2009 6,679 0 6,679 0.86
2010 11,719 0 11,719 1.50
2011 16,411 132 16,543 2.12
2012 24,500 1,088 25,588 3.29
2013 28,306 2,961 31,267 4.02
2014 33,680 4,777 38,457 4.94
2015 39,749 8,176 47,925 6.15
2016 48,430 12,682 61,112 7.85
2017 56,654 20,571 77,225 9.92
2018 59,580 31,503 91,083 11.70
2019 54,357 33,087 87,444 11.23
2020 57,964 47,420 105,384 13.53
2021 45,179 48,121 93,300 11.98
2022 33,098 38,635 71,733 9.21
2023 1,059 1,278 2,337 0.30
Total 528,107 250,437 778,544 99.97

Table 3

Basic analysis of microsatellite markers in test population

Locus Type

k N HObs HExp PIC FIS
BM1824 11 778,544 0.732 0.730 0.684 −0.0038
BM2113 17 778,544 0.736 0.733 0.692 −0.0034
ETH10 12 778,544 0.780 0.778 0.745 −0.0020
ETH225 11 778,544 0.693 0.691 0.649 −0.0022
ETH3 15 778,544 0.764 0.763 0.723 −0.0017
INRA023 16 778,544 0.788 0.784 0.755 −0.0040
SPS115 15 778,544 0.727 0.724 0.683 −0.0040
TGLA122 28 778,544 0.846 0.843 0.825 −0.0028
TGLA126 9 778,544 0.669 0.665 0.625 −0.0053
TGLA227 19 778,544 0.851 0.849 0.831 −0.0024
TGLA53 19 778,544 0.891 0.890 0.880 −0.0014
Mean 15.636 778,544 0.771 0.768 0.736 −0.0030

k, number of alleles; HObs, observed heterozygosity; HExp, expected heterozygosity; PIC, polymorphic information content; FIS, inbreeding coefficient.

Table 4

Analysis results of microsatellite markers identification power in test population

Locus Type1)

NE-1P NE-2P NE-PP NE-I NE-SI
BM1824 0.681 0.507 0.324 0.118 0.415
BM2113 0.670 0.493 0.305 0.112 0.411
ETH10 0.608 0.429 0.245 0.082 0.381
ETH225 0.719 0.542 0.353 0.138 0.439
ETH3 0.641 0.463 0.283 0.096 0.393
INRA023 0.588 0.409 0.221 0.075 0.377
SPS115 0.679 0.502 0.314 0.117 0.417
TGLA122 0.479 0.311 0.140 0.043 0.339
TGLA126 0.741 0.563 0.372 0.152 0.455
TGLA227 0.467 0.302 0.133 0.041 0.336
TGLA53 0.366 0.223 0.078 0.022 0.311
All marker set mean 0.003086 6.51E-05 9.00E-08 7.60E-13 2.84E-05
1)

NE-1P: Combined non-exclusion probability (first parent); NE-2P: Combined non-exclusion probability (second parent); NE-PP: Combined non-exclusion probability (parent pair); NE-I: Combined non-exclusion probability (identity); NE-SI: Combined non-exclusion probability (sib identity).

Table 5

Pairwise estimates of genetic differentiation (FST) by birth year

Birth year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
2001 0.0000 0.0013 0.0016 0.0017 0.0022 0.0033 0.0027 0.0034 0.0030 0.0027 0.0037 0.0044 0.0057 0.0069 0.0065 0.0059 0.0065 0.0063 0.0060 0.0068 0.0072 0.0075
2002 0.0014 0.0007 0.0025 0.0047 0.0043 0.0044 0.0046 0.0031 0.0028 0.0033 0.0045 0.0068 0.0073 0.0069 0.0076 0.0073 0.0075 0.0069 0.0073 0.0079 0.0081
2003 0.0004 0.0013 0.0021 0.0029 0.0040 0.0034 0.0023 0.0017 0.0029 0.0039 0.0056 0.0060 0.0060 0.0063 0.0068 0.0069 0.0061 0.0069 0.0076 0.0080
2004 0.0010 0.0024 0.0022 0.0032 0.0028 0.0022 0.0014 0.0024 0.0034 0.0051 0.0053 0.0061 0.0057 0.0065 0.0068 0.0064 0.0071 0.0077 0.0081
2005 0.0007 0.0015 0.0027 0.0024 0.0018 0.0015 0.0019 0.0028 0.0043 0.0045 0.0046 0.0043 0.0051 0.0052 0.0051 0.0058 0.0065 0.0070
2006 0.0012 0.0022 0.0024 0.0021 0.0016 0.0022 0.0027 0.0036 0.0042 0.0043 0.0042 0.0052 0.0052 0.0051 0.0060 0.0066 0.0072
2007 0.0015 0.0019 0.0020 0.0018 0.0019 0.0025 0.0030 0.0034 0.0041 0.0039 0.0048 0.0048 0.0048 0.0055 0.0058 0.0064
2008 0.0015 0.0027 0.0025 0.0021 0.0022 0.0026 0.0035 0.0037 0.0042 0.0044 0.0042 0.0046 0.0052 0.0055 0.0060
2009 0.0010 0.0017 0.0021 0.0023 0.0028 0.0029 0.0033 0.0037 0.0044 0.0044 0.0040 0.0047 0.0050 0.0055
2010 0.0009 0.0021 0.0027 0.0037 0.0033 0.0031 0.0040 0.0047 0.0049 0.0040 0.0045 0.0050 0.0054
2011 0.0012 0.0018 0.0033 0.0038 0.0041 0.0047 0.0055 0.0056 0.0050 0.0057 0.0064 0.0071
2012 0.0006 0.0020 0.0028 0.0030 0.0034 0.0034 0.0036 0.0036 0.0039 0.0046 0.0052
2013 0.0010 0.0020 0.0025 0.0033 0.0031 0.0028 0.0027 0.0032 0.0039 0.0044
2014 0.0008 0.0020 0.0026 0.0025 0.0020 0.0020 0.0024 0.0029 0.0034
2015 0.0014 0.0023 0.0024 0.0022 0.0020 0.0022 0.0026 0.0031
2016 0.0019 0.0020 0.0016 0.0013 0.0014 0.0016 0.0017
2017 0.0007 0.0015 0.0018 0.0020 0.0021 0.0024
2018 0.0006 0.0012 0.0012 0.0017 0.0021
2019 0.0005 0.0009 0.0015 0.0019
2020 0.0004 0.0010 0.0012
2021 0.0003 0.0008
2022 0.0003
2023

FST values range from 0 to 1, where values closer to 0 indicate little genetic differentiation, and values closer to 1 indicate greater differentiation.