REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING GENETIC DIVERSITY IN CANADIAN CATTLE AND BISON WORKSHOP REPORT JANUARY 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ________________________________________________________________________________________ii Workshop Participants __________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Introduction and Rationale _____________________________________________________________________________ 2 Workshop Objectives _____________________________________________________________________________________6 Workshop Leaders _____________________________________________________________________________________________7 Workshop Overview ____________________________________________________________________________________10 Workshop Outcomes ____________________________________________________________________________________11 Workshop Agenda ______________________________________________________________________________________ 12 Dinner Agenda __________________________________________________________________________________________ 13 Workshop Biographies ________________________________________________________________________________ 14 Seminar Summaries ____________________________________________________________________________________ 21 Summaries and Recommendations from Breakout Groups _________________________________________ 29 Appendix ________________________________________________________________________________________________ 37 i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This Workshop was made possible by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Connect Grant, funding by the Western College of Veterinary Medicine, and the efforts of the One Reproductive Health Research Group. Thanks to all the speakers, attendees and volunteers who helped to make this workshop a reality. The Group would like to thank Cheryl Hack, Elise Painchaud-­‐Rattai, and Nadine Kozakevich for their important administrative assistance. Special thanks to Ms. Karen Mosier, Research Facilitator, WCVM, University of Saskatchewan for her vital assistance with the NSERC Connect application, advice and incredible efforts to put this workshop together and for her help in compiling and formatting this report. ii WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS Figure 1: Reproductive Strategies for Addressing Genetic Diversity Workshop Participants, June 27th, 2015 Photo Credit: Dr. Jaswant Singh Attendees: Gregg Adams, Mohammad Anzar, Jennifer Barfield, Nicolas Caron, Carlos Carvalho, Renaldo Cerri, Pierre Comizzoli, Akanno Everustus, Douglas Freeman, Lorne Hepworth, Ali Honaramooz, John Kastelic, Claudia Klein, Les Kroeger, Daniel MacPhee, Michelle Marcotte, Gaby Mastromonaco, Rob McCorkell, Kerri McFarlane, Kim McLean, Wes Olson, Brad Ramstead, Pinette Robinson, Vianney Salmon, Flavio Schenkel, Todd Shury, Ricardo Simon, Jaswant Singh, Henry Soita, Murray Woodbury, Peter Flood, Mary von Der Porten, Basin Awda, Serena Caunce, Christina Tollett, Crystalyn Legg St. Pierre, Manuel Palomino, George Hall, Ana Rita Krause, Taryn Roberts, Carlos Leonardi, Elaine Bird, Steve Yang. Page 1 INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE Loss of Genetic Diversity Highly Specialized and Homogeneous Livestock Highly specialized and homogeneous livestock are the goal of current high-­‐efficiency agricultural production systems. Hence, domestic breeds of livestock are increasingly inbred and genetic diversity is decreasing as a result of emphasis on a few breeds or genetic lines within breeds to satisfy market demands. In addition, large commercial systems are common in Agriculture and selection goals and production environments are now very similar globally. Reproductive technologies have enabled production of a large number of progeny from a single individual and the distribution of germplasm (e.g. sperm and eggs) around the world can be rapid and efficient. This has placed intense selection pressure on certain genetic lines resulting in the propagation of genes from few individuals. A particular example of inbreeding and loss of genetic diversity may be found in the Canadian Holstein. Stachowicz et al (Journal of Dairy Science 94: 5160-­‐5175, 2011) has reported that from 2000-­‐2008, the ten ancestors contributing most to the breed in Canada (i.e., bulls) accounted for 62% of the gene pool. These top ten bulls also accounted for 71% of total inbreeding from 2000-­‐2008. The large number of descendants of these bulls means that there is a significant effect of these animals on the genetic structure of the current Holstein population. Critically, the list of most-­‐contributing ancestors in Canadian Holsteins closely resembles that in the United States, Denmark and Germany, underscoring the international ramifications on genetic diversity. These data highlight the shallowness of the gene pool in Canadian Holsteins, but a similar situation exists with other dairy breeds in Canada. This example serves to illustrate why it is critical to develop reproductive strategies to conserve and maintain sufficient variation in agricultural species (both common and rare breeds) to ensure Canada’s ability to respond to changing consumer demands, and threats related to disease, biosecurity, the Page 2 INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE environment and food safety. Clearly, it is a high priority goal of the dairy cattle breeding industry to maximize genetic gain while controlling inbreeding levels. For example, the Canadian Dairy Network is exploring ways to promote the exposure and usage of bulls with superior genetics that are less related to the population. Canada’s Wood Bison Canada’s wood bison represent a wild bovine species that is also threatened by the loss of genetic diversity. Wood bison once ranged throughout the boreal forest from the North Saskatchewan River to Alaska. Over-­‐harvesting and disease resulted in a decline to a low of 250 individuals at the turn of the 20th century. Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) was established to protect this remnant population of North America’s largest land mammal and by the early 1920’s, they had increased to 1500 animals. Concurrent with this success was the thriving plains bison herd at Buffalo National Park near Wainwright, Alberta. In an effort to reduce the size of the plains herd, 6,673 plains bison were shipped north to WBNP between 1922 and 1925. This translocation also introduced the cattle diseases, bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis, to the region, and within a few years the wood bison not only hybridized, but also contracted these diseases. With a current population of <6% of historic levels, wood bison remain listed as a threatened species under Schedule I of the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA). A founder herd of 23 disease-­‐free wood bison was established at Elk Island National Park (EINP) in the early 1970s. Maintained behind fences and in isolation from any other bison, the herd grew and became the founder for every wild, disease-­‐free wood bison herd outside of the WBNP area. While this ranks as one of Canada’s premier conservation legacies, serious threats to wood bison remain. These include 1) reduced genetic diversity of the EINP population and the herds established from it, and 2) genetic isolation through habitat segmentation and endemic disease in the remaining herds of wood bison. Of the 15 named Page 3 INTRODUCTION AND RATIONALE free-­‐ranging wood bison herds in Canada, 10 are considered endemically infected with brucellosis and tuberculosis with an intransigent infection rate of 30-­‐60%. Furthermore, individual herds remain in geographically isolated pockets of 100 to 400 animals, with little immigration from outside herds. These small herds represent valuable and currently inaccessible genetics, and are susceptible to stochastic events that threaten their survival. A recent example of the impact of such an event occurred in 2012 when more than 50% of the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary herd (one of the largest herds in existence) died of anthrax leaving only about 714 individuals. Figure 2: Wood Bison. Photo Credit: Michael Raine. Important Questions The examples of the Canadian Holstein and wood bison raise important questions about genetic variation within domestic and wild species: • What level of genetic diversity is important? • At what point is a loss of genetic diversity no longer compensable? • What strategies, if any, should be employed to remedy and monitor the situation in domestic and wild bovid species?
Page 4 WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES On June 27, 2015, the One Reproductive Health Research Group conducted a workshop on “Reproductive Strategies for Addressing Genetic Diversity in Canadian Cattle and Bison” to bring together experts from industry, government and the academia with the following objectives: 1. Address the question: Is inbreeding and the loss of genetic diversity a reason for concern? 2. Identify the risks associated with a critical loss of genetic diversity. 3. Create guidelines/strategies to retain genetic diversity among domestic and indigenous nondomestic bovids of Canada. 4. Identify technologies required to monitor genetic diversity and mitigate against the loss of genetic diversity. 5. Discuss the trade implications of the loss of genetic diversity in Canadian genetics. 6. Create new research partnerships on reproductive strategies to address genetic diversity. Page 6 WORKSHOP LEADERS Dr. Daniel MacPhee Dr. Daniel MacPhee, Associate Professor, Veterinary Biomedical Sciences, Western College of Veterinary Medicine. Dr. MacPhee received his PhD in Zoology from the University of Western Ontario in 1990 and then completed a Postdoctoral Fellowship at the internationally recognized Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute, University of Toronto. His research expertise spans the fields of mammalian pre-­‐implantation development to uterine and placental physiology. He has held grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and has been funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council since 2002. Dr. MacPhee holds an Establishment Grant from the Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation and was recently awarded a John R Evans Leaders Fund Infrastructure Grant from the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Dr. MacPhee is also a founding member of the One Reproductive Health Group (ORH) (http://www.usask.ca/groups/onereproductivehealth) established to bring together reproductive biologists from non-­‐academic and academic backgrounds to conduct research on a variety of domestic and wild animals as well as humans. Thus, Dr. MacPhee was the academic leader for this “Genetic Diversity” workshop in order to promote new collaborations among scientists at the University of Saskatchewan and researchers other universities, and stakeholders in industry and government. Dr. Gregg Adams Dr. Gregg Adams received his Veterinary degree from the University of Saskatchewan in 1982 and began his career as a clinician. While at the University of Wisconsin, he earned a Master’s degree in 1987, clinical specialization in Theriogenology in 1988, and a PhD in reproductive physiology/endocrinology in 1991. He joined the University of Saskatchewan in 1991 and is Professor in the Department of Veterinary Biomedical Sciences and member of the One Page 7 WORKSHOP LEADERS Reproductive Health Group where he teaches veterinary anatomy and reproductive physiology. He is the recipient of the University Distinguished Researcher Award and is recognized internationally for classic studies of ovarian follicle development and ovulation in several species including cattle, bison, and humans. His work has been cited among the top 100 scientific discoveries of the year by Discover Magazine, has resulted in stories in Science, Science News, The Scientist, and Nature News. Technical applications of his work include ovarian synchronization and superstimulation, oocyte collection, in vitro embryo production and transfer in cattle and bison, ultrasonography, and synchrotron-­‐based biomedical imaging. Dr. Adams has supervised 37 graduate students and post-­‐docs, and has held continuous grant support from public and private agencies for more than 20 years. He has authored over 170 peer-­‐reviewed publications and has given more than 100 invited presentations at national and international conferences. He is Past-­‐President of the International Embryo Transfer Society, an Executive of the International Congress on Animal Reproduction, and Theriogenologist of the Year 2014. Dr. Patrick Blondin Dr. Patrick Blondin obtained an MSc in Physiology-­‐Endocrinology (1993) and a PhD in Animal Science (1997) at Laval University and then completed a 2-­‐year postdoctoral internship at North Carolina State University (1999). He then joined Boviteq as an Industrial Research Fellow to assist in the development of novel ARTs. Dr. Blondin became Director of Clinical Research in a human ART lab to advance the field of reproductive biology in humans. He returned to Boviteq in 2003 as Director of R&D. Boviteq is Semex Alliance’s research division where Dr. Blondin manages an embryology laboratory (focused on in vitro fertilization, embryo freezing and genomics) and a semen laboratory (focused on semen quality, sperm fertility and cryopreservation). Dr. Blondin collaborates with many scientists from academic, private and government laboratories encouraging industry support of various research Page 8 WORKSHOP LEADERS projects. As such, he is strategically positioned to be the non-­‐academic leader for this workshop. Dr. Blondin is a member of the Scientific Committee of the Quebec Research Network on Reproduction (RQR), a member of the Board of Directors for the research network ‘EmbryoGENE’ and President of the International Embryo Transfer Society (IETS) Board of Governors. Page 9 WORKSHOP OVERVIEW The “Genetic Diversity” workshop was held on Saturday, June 27, 2015 at the Edwards School of Business at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The aim of this workshop was to build new collaborations between Canadian researchers, industry and government to identify the research and technology requirements for strategies to monitor and maintain the genetic diversity of wild and domestic species of Canada. Overall, this one-­‐
day event included information sessions on both basic and applied aspects of reproductive strategies to maintain genetic diversity in domestic and wild species by colleagues from academia, government and industry, and discussion of potential integrated collaborations and training programs. Page 10 WORKSHOP OUTCOMES The expected outcomes of this “Genetic Diversity” Workshop were to: • Determine the research priorities and knowledge gaps in the reproductive field and determine best practices for maintaining and increasing genetic diversity of wild and domestic species from the perspectives of industry, government, and university. • Inform attendees of new technical innovations in the reproductive field related to biobank establishment and deployment, genetic monitoring and management. • Identify potential areas of future collaboration among academic, industry and government leaders and researchers regarding reproductive strategies to monitor and maintain genetic diversity. • To promote development of interdisciplinary teams that will develop projects, build a training program around reproductive technologies, and best practices to monitor and increase genetic diversity in species such as wood bison and dairy cattle. Page 11 WORKSHOP AGENDA Reproductive Strategies for Addressing Genetic Diversity
Workshop Agenda
Saturday, June 27th, 2015, Room 18 Edward’s School of Business
Breakout Sessions in Rooms 3,12,16 Edward’s School of Business, University of
Saskatchewan
8:00am – 8:30am
8:30am – 8:50am
8:50am – 9:45am
9:45 am – 10:40am
10:40am – 10:55am
10:55am – 12:00pm
12:00pm – 1:00pm
1:00pm – 1:30pm
1:30pm – 1:55pm
1:55pm – 2:50pm
2:50pm – 3:00pm
3:00pm – 4:15pm
Page 12 Registration/BREAKFAST
Foyer: Edward’s School of Business
Session 1: Inbreeding and Genetic Diversity: A Concern?
Session Moderator/ Introduction: Dr. G. Mastromonaco
(University of Guelph and Toronto Zoo): Sustainability of Zoo
Populations: Challenges for Genetic Management.
Speaker #1: Dr. Flavio Schenkel (University of Guelph): Genetic
Diversity and Inbreeding in Canadian Dairy Cattle – Before and
After Genomics.
Speaker #2: Dr. Keri McFarlane (Kings University, Edmonton):
Wood Bison Genetic Diversity
NUTRITION BREAK & NETWORKING
Foyer: Edward’s School of Business
Breakout A (45 min discussion, 20 min joint summary):
Summary of Identified Challenges & Potential Solutions
LUNCH & TABLE DISCUSSIONS
Foyer: Edward’s School of Business
Session 2: Biobanks. How are they made and deployed.
Session Moderator: Dr. Pierre Comizzoli (University of
Maryland, Research Scientist, Smithsonian National Zoological
Park, Washington, DC)
Speaker #3: Dr. Pierre Comizzoli : Cryobanking Biomaterials
to Conserve Genes and Biodiversity.
Speaker #4: Dr. Michelle Marcotte (Director, Research and
Development, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada)
NUTRITIONAL BREAK & NETWORKING
Foyer: Edward’s School of Business
Breakout B (45 min discussion, 30 min joint summary): Summary
of Identified Challenges & Potential Solutions. Informing Policy,
Industry, Society
DINNER AGENDA Reproductive Strategies for Addressing Genetic Diversity Dinner Agenda June 27th, 2015, Marquis Hall, U of S Campus
6:00pm – 6:30pm
Pre-Networking Event (Cash Bar)
6:30pm
DINNER
7:00pm
Welcome – Dr. Doug Freeman,
Dean, Western College of Vet Medicine
7:10pm
Dr. Lorne Hepworth
(Chair, Board of Directors, Genome Canada)
7:30pm
Mr. Wes Olson
(Parks Canada, retired; Author: A Field Guide to Plains
Bison)
Genetic Bottlenecks and Phenotypic Expression
8:00pm
Table Discussions/Networking Opportunity
8:30pm
Closing Remarks – Dr. Baljit Singh,
Associate Dean (Research), WCVM
Page 13 WORKSHOP SPEAKERS BIOGRAPHIES Gabriela Mastromonaco, MSc, PhD Curator of Reproductive Programs & Research, Toronto Zoo Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Biomedical Sciences, University of Guelph Biography Dr. Mastromonaco has worked at the Toronto Zoo managing diagnostic services and research programs in the Reproductive Physiology Unit for the past eight years. With over fifteen years of experience in assisted reproductive technologies, she has worked on a variety of domestic and non-­‐domestic species, as well as humans. Her program goals are to understand the differences in reproductive biology of diverse species and apply that knowledge to develop tools that can assist with the preservation of threatened and endangered species. Flavio Schenkel, PhD Professor, CGIL Director Department of Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph Guelph, Ontario, Canada Biography Dr. Schenkel is a full professor and director of the Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock at University of Guelph with research interests ranging from theoretical to applied genetics and genomics in livestock breeding. Current research focuses on the use of genomic Page 14 WORKSHOP SPEAKERS BIOGRAPHIES information to enhance genetic evaluation of livestock species with emphasis on genomic selection. His research program is supported by industry and governmental funds from various funding agencies. Since 2006, he is a member of influential industry boards in Canada, including the DairyGen Council of Canadian Dairy Network and the Dairy Cattle Genetic Evaluation Board. In his scientific career, Dr. Schenkel published over 95 peer-­‐reviewed scientific papers, 210 conference papers/abstracts and 80 technical reports, and has contributed to the formation of dozens of highly qualified personnel. Dr. Schenkel also serves on several international journal editorial boards and maintains strong research collaborations with researchers in Brazil. Keri McFarlane, PhD Associate Professor Department of Biology The King's University 9125 -­‐ 50 Street Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6B 2H3, Biography Keri McFarlane is an Associate Professor of Biology at The King’s University in Edmonton. Her research focuses on conservation genetics of birds and large mammals. Some of her past work includes studies and evaluations of management strategies for conservation of genetic diversity in wood bison, and she co-­‐authored the 2004 COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on Plains Bison in Canada. Page 15 WORKSHOP SPEAKERS BIOGRAPHIES Pierre Comizzoli, PhD Research Scientist, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington, DC Department of Animal and Avian Sciences College of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of Maryland Biography Pierre Comizzoli has worked as a veterinarian in French Guyana to study the seasonal reproduction of different mammalian species living in the rain forest. He has been in charge of reproductive and health monitoring programs (sheep, goat and cattle) in the African Sahelo-­‐
Saharan region. Dr. Comizzoli then obtained a Master and a Ph.D. on reproductive biotechnologies (artificial insemination, embryo transfer, in vitro fertilization, gamete and embryo cryopreservation) in bovine and deer species. After completing his Ph.D., he has worked on the implementation of assisted reproductive techniques and genome resource banking for the conservation of ungulate species at the National Museum of Natural History of Paris. In 2002, Dr. Comizzoli joined the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute at the National Zoological Park in Washington DC as a staff scientist to develop new projects on gamete and gonadal tissue cryo-­‐banking for rare and endangered species. His comparative research on fertility preservation in various wild and domestic animal species creates interesting bridges with human reproductive medicine. In addition to basic research activities, Dr. Comizzoli is the Project Leader of the Pan-­‐Smithsonian Cryo-­‐Initiative that aims at improving the management and use of biomaterial and environmental repositories within the Institution. He also is in charge of conservation projects on wild carnivores and ungulates in Northern Africa as well as in South-­‐East Asia. Based on his experience in interdisciplinary Page 16 WORKSHOP SPEAKERS BIOGRAPHIES research at the Smithsonian he was appointed as Director of the Grand Challenges Consortia for Science in May 2014. Michelle Marcotte, PhD Director, Research, Development, Technology Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre Agriculture and Agri-­‐Food Canada Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Biography Dr. Michèle Marcotte obtained a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering (Laval), a master’s in food engineering (Alberta) and a Ph.D. in food processing (McGill). She started as a Professional Engineer at Agriculture and Agri-­‐Food Canada at the AAFC’s Food Research and Development Centre located in St. Hyacinthe where she held a successful career for 21 years as a section head of food preservation technologies; a research scientist in Food Processing and Engineering; an advisor to the Director General of the Food Safety and Quality National Science Program. She supervised several cooperative and graduate students in her laboratory. She authored and co-­‐authored more than 60 peer-­‐reviewed papers, 120 conference papers and 45 research reports. In February 2009, the Quebec Order of Engineers that regroups more than 50,000 engineers featured a cover story in its monthly magazine on the role of engineering for food safety. Dr. Marcotte also developed a unique two-­‐step drying process for cranberries that was implemented commercially in Quebec. Other significant developments Page 17 WORKSHOP SPEAKERS BIOGRAPHIES include a prototype pilot oven for the optimization of baking and computer software to establish cooking-­‐cooling cycle for meat products. Lorne H. Hepworth 15-­‐50 Northumberland Road London, Ontario N6H 5J2 519-­‐473-­‐0166 res 519-­‐902-­‐1373 cell lorne.hepworth@gmail.com Biography Lorne Hepworth is now retired, after serving for over 16 years as President and CEO of CropLife Canada, the trade association representing developers, manufacturers and distributors of plant science innovations for use in agriculture, urban and public health settings. Dr. Hepworth is currently the Chair of the Board of Genome Canada; a member of the Board of CARE Canada; a member of the board of the Global Institute for Food Security; a member of the board of Input Capital Corp; and, on the Canadian International Food Security Research Fund Governance Committee. He recently served on the Canadian Council of Academies Expert Panel on Sustainable Management of Water in the Agriculture Landscapes of Canada. He has served as a member of the Advisory Board of the National Research Council of Canada, Plant Biotechnology Institute; the Canadian Agri-­‐Food Research Council; the federal government’s Pest Management Advisory Committee and National Biotechnology Advisory Committee. A graduate of the Western College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Saskatchewan Page 18 WORKSHOP SPEAKERS BIOGRAPHIES (1971), Dr. Hepworth was a veterinarian in Alberta and Saskatchewan until 1982, when he was elected to Saskatchewan’s Legislative Assembly. He subsequently served nine years in Cabinet, during which he was minister of Agriculture, Education, Finance, and Energy and Mines. From 1993 to 1997, he held several executive positions with the Canadian Agra group of companies specializing in agri-­‐food/feed production, processing and marketing. In 2012 he was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal and in 2014 was inducted into the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame. He was raised on a farm near Assiniboia, Saskatchewan and continues to have an interest in farming there, including the original homestead quarter established by his grandfather in 1907. He is married to Fern and they have two adult children (Graeme and Alana). Wes Olson Parks Canada National Park Warden, Retired Author: A Field Guide to Plains Bison & Portraits of the Bison. An Illustrated Guide to Bison Society. Val Marie, Saskatchewan Biography Wes Olson has had a life-­‐long association with wild places and wildlife that live in them. Wes worked for several years as a Wildlife Technician for the Yukon Government and then, after a stint at the Banff School of Fine Arts in 1981, began a career with Parks Canada as a National Park Warden, with a focus on bison management in Banff, Waterton Lakes, Elk Island, Prince Albert and Grasslands National Parks, where he retired in 2012. This long history with bison Page 19 WORKSHOP SPEAKERS BIOGRAPHIES and the spectacular natural areas they occupy has given Wes an international reputation for his knowledge about both plains and wood bison. Wes has combined his extensive scientific knowledge about bison with his wife Johane’s photography to create compelling stories about this charismatic animal. Page 20 SEMINAR SUMMARIES Sustainability of Zoo Populations: Challenges for Genetic Management Gabriela Mastromonaco, Reproductive Physiology, Toronto Zoo, Toronto, ON; Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON. Long-­‐term sustainability of zoo-­‐based populations is a necessity if we hope to preserve threatened and endangered species. However, maintaining genetically diverse and demographically stable populations for a defined timeframe has been challenging and more than half of all conservation breeding programs have been unable to meet their population goals. In a recent report from the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums, zoo populations that are managed regionally are too small, based on too few founders, and not achieving the necessary growth rates. Factors that have limited the ability of zoos to achieve adequate levels of sustainability include lack of holding/breeding space, insufficient husbandry expertise to support consistent reproductive success, and difficulties in obtaining permits for animal movement. Attempts to overcome some of these challenges have relied on reproductive biotechnologies, particularly artificial insemination with fresh and frozen-­‐thawed sperm, to enhance genetic management in closed and isolated populations. More recently, the importance of integrating natural mating strategies with genetic management has prompted the implementation of other mechanisms, including female mate choice, to improve reproductive success. Moving forward, zoos must modify their current methods for captive breeding to permit the management of species within a broader, global perspective, and to support genetic exchange between populations ranging from in situ to ex situ. Page 27 SEMINAR SUMMARIES Genetic diversity and inbreeding in Canadian Dairy Cattle – Before and after Genetics Flavio Schenkel, Professor, Director, Centre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON Genetic diversity and inbreeding are current issues in dairy breeding mainly because breeding programs around the world are still focussed on a limited number of bulls used as sires of sons, in addition to the recent reductions in generation interval caused by the use of genomic information. Research results indicate that dairy breeds in Canada and worldwide have lost genetic diversity over time and that the loss is gaining momentum due to increasing rates of inbreeding, reduced effective population sizes and shorter generation intervals. Genomic selection has been successfully implemented in dairy cattle evaluation in Canada and several countries worldwide, substantially increasing rates of genetic progress. One of the challenges that still remain after its implementation is how to best manage genetic diversity and inbreeding. Early studies suggested that genomic selection would result in a lower rate of inbreeding per generation, as a consequence of increasing selection emphasis on Mendelian sampling component of the breeding value. However, because genomic evaluation can be available early in an animal’s life, the corresponding decrease in generation interval has resulted in an increase in inbreeding rate per year in dairy cattle. Nevertheless, genomic information provides opportunity to assess inbreeding and genetic diversity at the genome level, so that the actual levels of inbreeding and relationship between individuals can be more accurately calculated and predicted. Studies show that selection schemes and mating strategies might be even more valuable to control inbreeding under genomic selection than before. The implementation of strategies to use genomic information aiming not only to make faster genetic progress, but also managing inbreeding and diversity levels seems currently needed. The Canadian dairy breeding industry seems to be moving towards this direction. Page 28 SEMINAR SUMMARIES Wood bison: Understanding concerns about genetic diversity and inbreeding Keri McFarlane, Associate Professor, Department of Biology, The King's University, 9125 -­‐ 50 Street, Edmonton, AB Wood bison (Bison bison athabascae) occur solely in Canada and face a number of challenging conservation issues, including disease, limited and fragmented habitat, reduced numbers, and lack of natural connectivity among disease-­‐free herds. The present status of wood bison herds—particularly with respect to disease, hybridization, genetic health and adaptive potential—has been influenced by their history and past management. Both the geographic distribution and abundance of wood bison have declined drastically during the past 150 years—from an estimated 100,000 that ranged from southern Alberta to the arctic coast, to about 250 individuals that were restricted to part of an area of present-­‐day Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) (1, and see 2, 3, 4). Today, about 7000 mature wood bison occur in Canada in nine isolated herds, each of which were established from a relatively few number of founders (4). Approximately two-­‐thirds of wood bison occur in WBNP, where plains bison also range and where the presence of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis has been detected (4). Hybridization among plains bison (B. b. bison) and wood bison subspecies has occurred. According to microsatellite analyses, all extant wood bison are actually ‘wood-­‐plains’ hybrids and there are no remaining ‘pure’ wood bison (5, 6). On the other hand, despite concerns that cattle introgression may have a phenotypic effect on plains bison (7), genetic introgression from cattle is not a significant concern among wood bison (8). No nuclear or mitochondrial cattle ancestry has been detected in wood bison, and the very small proportion of cattle introgression detected in plains bison (i.e., < 1%) is unlikely to pose a risk to the wood bison gene pool in WBNP (4, 8). Genetic diversity studies based on microsatellite analyses have shown that the majority of diversity in wood bison exists within the diseased herds of WBNP (5). Disease-­‐free salvage populations, such as Elk Island National Park (EINP) and Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary (MBS), are considerably less variable, which likely reflects past founder effects and subsequent genetic drift (5, 9, 10). In general, levels of wood bison genetic diversity are moderate: Page 29 SEMINAR SUMMARIES heterozygosities range from 48–60% and rarified allelic diversity ranges from 3.3–4.5 alleles per locus (5, 9, 11, 12). The unequal distribution of genetic diversity among the nine wild herds, along with the series of founding events and past population bottlenecks, has raised concerns about the rate at which genetic diversity may be lost over time. At present, inbreeding coefficients are not significant in any wood bison herd (12). Nonetheless, although the risk of inbreeding depression may not presently be a concern, management efforts should focus on preserving existing diversity. All herds of wood bison have demographic factors that could lead to inbreeding depression in the future, including a small numbers of founders, population bottlenecks, genetic isolation, and sustained low effective population sizes (for review, see 13). Importantly, all of these factors may be preventable with careful management and reproductive strategies. A population modelling study evaluated management strategies for minimizing loss of genetic diversity (11). Results showed that WBNP has the highest genetic importance and the largest contribution to the total diversity of wood bison. Herds from EINP and MBS also make positive contributions to the total diversity, if WBNP is not considered. Thus, future salvage efforts should be focused on individuals or germplasm from in and around WBNP to retain this diversity. The study also showed that large herd sizes and regular movements of animals among the most genetically important herds can slow the rate of diversity loss. Population size has the most significant influence on diversity, and, therefore, management of herds with a census of at least 400 individuals is recommended. Literature cited 1. Soper, J.D. 1941. History, range, and home life of the northern bison. Ecological Monographs 11:347–412. 2. Gates, C.C., Chowns, T. and H. Reynolds. 1992. Wood Buffalo at the Crossroads. Pp. 139–
165, In J. Foster, D. Harrison, and I.S. MacLaren (eds.) Alberta: Studies in the Arts and Sciences, Vol 3 (1), Special Issue on the Buffalo. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton, AB. 3. Stephenson, R.O, Gerlach, S. C., Guthrie, R. D., Harington, C. R., Mills, R.O. and G. Hare. 2001. Wood Bison in Late Holocene Alaska and Adjacent Canada: Paleontological, Archaeological and Historical Records. Pages 125–159 in S.C. Gerlach and M.S. Murray, eds. People and Wildlife in Northern North America. Essays in Honor of R. Dale Guthrie. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 994. Hadrian, Oxford, UK. Page 30 SEMINAR SUMMARIES 4. COSEWIC. 2013. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Plains Bison Bison bison bison and the Wood Bison Bison bison athabascae in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. xv + 109 pp. (www.registrelep-­‐
sararegistry.gc.ca/default_e.cfm). 5. Wilson, G.A., and C. Strobeck. 1999. Genetic variation within and relatedness among wood and plains bison populations. Genome 42: 483–496. 6. COSEWIC. 2004. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Plains Bison Bison bison bison in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vi + 71 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm). 7. Derr, J.N., Hedrick, P.W., Halbert, N.D., Plough, L., Dobson, L.K., King, J., Duncan, C., Hunter, D.L., Cohen, N.D. and D. Hedgecock. 2012. Phenotypic effects of cattle mitochondrial DNA in American bison. Conservation Biology 26(6): 1130–1136. 8. Hedrick, P.W. 2009. Conservation genetics and North American bison (Bison bison). Journal of Heredity 100(4): 411–420. 9. Wilson, G.A., Nishi, J.S., Elkin, B.T. and C. Strobeck. 2005. Effects of a recent founding event and intrinsic population dynamics on genetic diversity in an ungulate population. Conservation Genetics. 6: 905–916. 10. Wilson, G.A., and K. Zittlau (McFarlane). 2004. Management strategies for minimizing the loss of genetic diversity in wood and plains bison populations at Elk Island National Park. Parks Canada Agency, Species at Risk. 58 pp. 11. McFarlane, K., Wilson, G.A. and J.S. Nishi. 2006. Management strategies for conservation of genetic diversity in wood bison. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Government of the Northwest Territories. File Report No. 135. Xii + 75 pp. 12. Ball, M.C., Fulton, T.L. and G.A. Wilson. In press. Genetic analyses of wild bison in Alberta, Canada: implications for recovery and disease management. Journal of Mammalogy. 13. Hedrick, P.W. 2005. Genetics of Populations. 3rd ed. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Page 31 SEMINAR SUMMARIES Cryobanking Biomaterials to Conserve Genes and Biodiversity Pierre Comizzoli, Research Scientist, Smithsonian National Zoological Park, Washington, DC; Department of Animal and Avian Sciences, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Maryland, College Park, MD When considering the topic of cryobanking, it is natural to think first about the collection, storage and use of human biomaterials, a process now considered essential for addressing many diseases and medical conditions. However, for more than three decades, systematic gathering and cryo-­‐storage of biomaterials from diverse wild species have been ongoing to save gene diversity and improve captive (ex situ) and wild (in situ) animal management. Whereas repositories for humans generally are highly specialized toward a targeted medical issue, cryo-­‐storage of non-­‐human biomaterials offers broader opportunities -­‐ from helping to understand the fundamental biology of unstudied species to enhanced conservation breeding, genomics and veterinary medicine. There are commonalities between human and wildlife biobanking programs, including similar needs to harmonize sample and data collection, management and most effective use as well as finding ways to be financially sustainable. There also is a need to build bridges between these two ‘repository worlds’, sharing what we do, addressing the substantial remaining challenges and considering the advantages of a bigger, more integrated field of global biobanking science to benefit humans, diverse species and the planet. There now are real-­‐life illustrations of using biobanks for conservation breeding. The iconic giant panda is routinely managed in ex situ collections and on a large-­‐scale in China using artificial insemination with fresh and frozen-­‐thawed spermatozoa. The black-­‐footed ferret, once the most endangered species in North American, has been recovered by a combination of natural mating and artificial insemination, including with sperm that has been frozen and Page 32 SEMINAR SUMMARIES stored for up to 2 decades. There also are many examples of ‘milestone’ births using frozen-­‐
thawed spermatozoa or even embryos (from cheetahs to Eld’s deer to African antelopes) with the incidence of success completely dependent on having an excellent understanding of the details of the target species’ reproductive physiology. The components of the most valuable wildlife biobanks, of course, extends beyond reproductive cells to include tissues, cell lines, blood products and DNA, all highly relevant to the study and maintenance of biodiversity. Quantifiable amounts of genetic diversity can be determined for every sampled individual to help make informed conservation management decisions as well as improve our understanding of the processes underlying patterns of gene flow, selection and mating. Blood samples can be screened for clinical chemistries to provide new data on species norms or as sentinel information to identify onset and, eventually, cause of disease outbreaks to speed remedial actions. Samples also are valuable for evaluating reproductive fitness or toxic contamination events in populations. Most importantly, properly organized biobanks can provide open access to qualified researchers who normally work outside the conventional mainstream of wildlife conservation biology. This has the potential for generating vast amounts of additional basic and applied information, especially as advantages of the new ‘omics’ technologies are realized and directed to stored samples. Genomes of thousands of organisms, including bacteria, archaea and many fungi, animals and plants have been sequenced to begin more thoroughly documenting the earth’s abundant bio-­‐ and genetic diversity. Genomic data are being annotated, augmented and refined through transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics to give us detailed pictures of messenger RNA, protein and metabolite systems and the mechanisms that are controlling life. Importantly, the science of cryobiology offers the possibility to preserve the integrity of valuable samples for extended periods of time. This knowledge is essential to the successful use of these valuable bio-­‐resources for assisted reproduction and new biotechnologies Page 33 SEMINAR SUMMARIES mentioned above that provide enormous amount of information. Biobanking can be considered as a science because collecting and preserving any possible samples from any species is now necessary for successful conservation biology. Thus, large amounts of samples have to be (1) systematically collected and preserved in optimal conditions and then (2) easily accessible to scientists. However, cryobiology, cryo-­‐banking, and the appending technologies to use and analyze the samples are sometimes considered having relatively few impacts on conservation actions. It therefore is fundamental to continue building more bridges with other conservation biology as well as medical disciplines. Page 34 SEMINAR SUMMARIES Agriculture and Agri-­‐Food Canada’s Biodiversity and Bioresources Sector Strategy Michelle Marcotte, Director, Research, Development, Technology, Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-­‐Food Canada, Ottawa, ON The Agriculture and Agri-­‐Food Canada’s (AAFC) departmental vision and mission were established in 2011-­‐2012. Earlier, AAFC established the three mandated priorities (an environmentally sustainable agriculture, agri-­‐food and agri-­‐based products sector; a competitive agriculture, agri-­‐food and agri-­‐based products sector that proactively manages risks; an innovative agriculture, agri-­‐food and agri-­‐based products sector), foundational to the second generation of Agricultural Policy or Growing Forward (2008-­‐2013). In a spirit of continuity, Growing Forward II was implemented on April 1st, 2013 and will end on March 31, 2018. In July 2012, the Science and Technology Branch (STB) was created. In 2013, with the outlining of three roles for STB as 1) informing regulatory and policy decisions; 2) producing far-­‐from-­‐adoption applied science with broad stakeholder application; 3) supporting innovation to improve economic prosperity, three pillars were approved at senior management level, foundation of the Strategic Direction of the STB. Pillar 1 is to provide science that enhances the sector’s resiliency by addressing the challenge to the resource base (soil, water, air and climate)/sector’s capability to produce. Pillar 2 is to foster new areas of opportunity for the sector by addressing new and non-­‐traditional commercial opportunities for the sector. Pillar 3 is to support sector competitiveness by addressing existing sector’s capability to respond to market demand. In 2013-­‐2014, through extensive external and internal stakeholders’ consultations, nine sector strategies were elaborated for the STB. Seven are commodity based: cereals and pulses; oilseeds; horticulture; beef and forage; dairy, swine, poultry and other livestock; agri-­‐food; bioproducts; and two are cross-­‐cutting: agri-­‐ecosystems Page 35 SEMINAR SUMMARIES productivity and health; and finally biodiversity and bioresources. For each, 4 strategic objectives were outlined resulting in the STB Strategy Matrix, guiding all research, development and technology transfer activities of STB along the innovation continuum. The STB Strategy Matrix was approved by the Department in March 2014 to be implemented as of April 1st, 2014 for the next 5 years. This presentation will outline the overall scope of the Biodiversity and Bioresources Sector Strategy, will discuss some results after its first year of implementation, with specific examples related to the Canadian Animal Genetic Resources (CAGR). Page 36 SEMINAR SUMMARIES Bison: Genetic Bottlenecks and Phenotypic Expression Wes Olson, Parks Canada, National Park Warden, Retired The taxonomy of American bison remains a controversial subject, particularly the legitimacy of the subspecies designations for plains bison (Bison bison bison) and wood bison (Bison bison athabascae). Based on the supposition that subspecies are distinguished by at least one consistent taxonomic difference, wood bison and plains bison are subspecies and not ecotypes since 1) they retain their unique characteristics when placed outside their historic range (i.e., 16 generations in central Alberta, 36 generations of plains bison in Alaska), 2) complete hybridization of plains and wood bison in Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) did not occur despite interruption of the evolution of the subspecies by the introduction of plains bison into wood bison range in the 1920’s, 3) remnant herds of wood bison remain, as identified by phenotypic and genotypic characteristics. Distinguishing phenotypic features between plains and wood bison include distinct and measurable differences in hair coat patterns, body conformation and size, and behavior. Studies of DNA microsatellites indicate that the genetic distances between plains bison and wood bison are greater than those within either of the two subspecies, and strong microsatellite clustering suggest that wood bison and plains bison are functioning as distinct genetic entities. However, a survey of the genetics of bison both within WBNP and Elk Island National Park (EINP) concluded that these bison fall into a spectrum of genetic admixture and that there are no pure wood bison remaining in these areas. This finding was confirmed recently in a DNA microsatellite study of bison groups outside the boundaries of WBNP and EINP in Alberta. Regardless of whether wood bison are considered a subspecies or variety, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC), defines wood bison as a designatable unit because it includes both discrete and evolutionarily significant populations. Page 27 SEMINAR SUMMARIES Wood bison have undergone at least 5 genetic bottlenecks beginning with the “great contraction” during the late 1800s. Despite concerted efforts since the initial decline, the wood bison population remains at <5% of its “pre-­‐contraction” number: • 1830-­‐1900 “Great contraction” from 168,000 to 250 animals as a result of overhunting and severe winters • 1925-­‐28 Hybridization after introduction of plains bison to Wood Buffalo National Park • 1963-­‐65 Nyarling River herd: 167 isolated wood bison discovered in 1957, thought to be non-­‐hybrid. Of 69 captured, 18 were moved to establish the Mackenzie Bison Sanctuary, and 23 were moved to establish the Elk Island National Park herd. • 1968 Tuberculosis detected in the new Elk Island herd. All cows were allowed to calve, and were then killed. As a result, the Elk Island wood bison herd was founded upon 32 calves (13 females and 19 males) born in EINP. All wild, disease-­‐free wood bison herds outside of the WBNP area were founded from these EINP calves. • 1978 10 classic wood bison bulls from EINP (41% of the breeding males) were slaughtered for use as study specimens for the National Museum collection in Ottawa. This action may be the most influential constriction in recent times because the most characteristic wood bison phenotype was selected and removed. Modern threats to wood bison remain, and relate primarily to genetic isolation through habitat segmentation and endemic disease. Of the 15 named free-­‐ranging wood bison herds in Canada, 10 are considered endemically infected with brucellosis and tuberculosis. In 1987, the Northwest Territories instituted a Bison Control Area to prevent the spread of brucellosis and tuberculosis to disease-­‐free herds. The provinces of Alberta and British Columbia have similar Agricultural Area Surveillance Zones to monitor and restrict movement of free-­‐roaming bison. By killing bison that enter into these “buffer zones”, the programs effectively prevent establishment of free-­‐ranging herds in over 40% of the original wood bison range. Page 28 SUMMARIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS Breakout Session I: Inbreeding and Genetic Diversity: A Concern? Question 1: Should we keep plains bison separate (buffer zone) from wood bison to preserve their genetics or let them potentially mix? What are the existing strategies for co-­‐
maintenance of these two sub-­‐species? • YES, but … - Controversy about distinction between Wood Bison & Plains Bison - Historically, geographically, and phenotypically distinct (Environment Canada considers them “Designatable units”; i.e., distinctly different) • Present strategy - Private herds – no strategy - Public herds – buffer (kill) zones • Some mixing inevitable and likely not a problem in the wild • Keeping separate is less of a concern than strategy for introduction of a new genetics into pool • Should identify resources to prevent hybridization of genetically valuable herds (within and between PB & WB) - Need germ plasm from the diseased herds in WBNP – most valuable - Maintain ‘pure’ herds as primary genetic resource Private sector (livestock production) vs public sector (conservation of wild species) • Different priorities, therefore must have strategy for each • Important for both to have “purebred” stock from which to propagate Page 29 SUMMARIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS • Hybrid vigor important for livestock production, but important to remember that terminal-­‐cross animals meant for market ultimately begin with “purebreds” • Selection for domestic needs is not the same as natural selection for survival of fittest • Use private herds - As surrogate herds for wild population - Testing grounds for reproductive technologies and genomic selection strategies • Use wild herds - As critical source of genetic diversity - Determining the influence of genotype on disease resistance/susceptibility - DNA sequencing of the subspecies, and relating genetic variation with phenotype • “Good enough” is not good enough. We need a strong commitment to manage bison separately. Current path will ultimately lead to disappearance. Loss of phenotypic vigor becomes apparent at the terminal stages of bottleneck – at which point it is irreversible • Maintenance of genetic record to monitor genetics and develop selection strategy is vital -­‐ but method?? - pedigree, mtDNA, SNPs, deep sequencing • Need to link phenotypic characteristics with genotype data Recommendation and Strategy • Assisted reproductive strategies - Introduce the new genetics slowly - AI, IVF, ET better than moving live animals around (resources, logistics, biosecurity) - Techniques need to be revised often and improved (e.g., AI vs embryo transfer) Page 30 SUMMARIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS - Maternal and paternal characteristics should both be saved • If money was no issue, high density SNP is ideal • How much of that information (SNPs) can be used to improve the situation and what would we be looking for? - Fitness - Other qualities; not sure – need more basic biology studies to determine • Conservation - Need greater genetic analysis of the wild bovids - Need to link the genotype with the phenotype. Question 2: With the availability of genomic markers, how or should they be used for selection of domestic and wild bovids? (Fast vs Slow inbreeding accumulation and pedigree vs genomic based selection) It was clear that participants agreed there is a need to assess genetic variability of wild bovids in particular because there such little knowledge available. In this respect, the genetics of plains and wood bison need to be characterized because genomic analysis of these animals is key to future conservation (and commercially too); i.e., understanding differences. Recommendation 1: • Manage conservation herds differently from production herds for specific genetic needs. o Production – improved meat quality, milk quality, etc o Conservation – promote genetic diversity for strength of the species • Accomplish this? Page 31 SUMMARIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS • Genotyping all bison (i.e., in all nine wild wood bison conservation herds ) is ideal but not realistic. If money was no concern, a 600K-­‐800K genomics SNP panel to genotype animals would be needed. • SNP array is a type of DNA microarray which is used to detect polymorphisms within a population. A single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), a variation at a single site in DNA, is the most frequent type of variation in the genome. It can be used to study genetic variations within and between populations. • Thus, recommend: o Utilize a 60K SNP panel (evidently used successfully for Water Buffalo) for genotyping. Customize chip for bison. o Genotyping may be difficult for wild bovids; i.e., do not come into barns or chutes, etc. However, can take advantage of samples (hair follicles, ear notch, blood) taken by wildlife researchers, environment officials, and local hunters) Recommendation 2: • Remember, some mixing of the two bison populations/subspecies has likely occurred to a limited extent through classical selection. Also if a narrow genetic pool is found it may not be as detrimental as first thought. o Link genotype information to phenotype. Fitness is important but we desperately need more genetic information. o Accomplish this? o Use established data on the different: • phenotypes of wild bison; i.e., Wes Olson (formerly of Parks Canada) • genotypes of wild bison; i.e., Wilson & Ball (Environment Canada), McFarlane (King’s Univ, Edmonton) Page 32 SUMMARIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS Question 3: If genetic diversity is important, then who is responsible for ensuring a healthy degree of genetic diversity in our wild and domestic bovids and other animals? Industry? First Nation Groups? Scientists? Private citizens? How do we get stakeholders involved in this and who owns the resulting progeny? Participants felt that government (domestic standpoint in particular), producers, and scientists all have a role. It was decided that there is a need to get international groups and the policy makers engaged. Intellectual property is still an issue due to genetics. Recommendation – 1: • Holsteins-­‐ Dairy Industry is largely responsible. Scientists should be engaged to provide necessary data • Bison/Wildife – Parks Canada, Provincial Governments, COSEWIC, Scientists o Genetic information/material is important and it needs to be collected as soon as possible before there is die-­‐off and must deal with the logistics afterwards if necessary. Recommendation – 2: • Different strategies for genetic selection are needed between Private vs Conservation herds. Currently, strategies are non-­‐existent for consistent improvement of diversity in wild bovids, and this must be addressed. o Private herds could also be used as a genetic bank for wild herds to maintain diversity. Page 33 SUMMARIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS Breakout Session II: Biobanks: How are they made and deployed? Question 1: What are the endpoints and traits we should look for during genetic preservation? • Who decides? o Private sector (livestock production) vs public sector (conservation of wild species) – different goals, different strategy • Need genetic diversity and diversity of samples (gametes, blood, hair, etc). How much is enough? o you cannot just preserve semen -­‐ we need female genetics • Genetic monitoring may be the same as in a Holstein herd – (heterozygosity, in-­‐
breeding coefficient, Ne) • Genetic characteristics must be associated with phenotypic characteristics and geographic distribution • Can we identify germlines that contribute high diversity to the species? • Cryopreservation with the idea of repopulating a species – must have a strategy – otherwise garbage in -­‐ garbage out • What are the endpoints and traits we should look for during genetic preservation? o Interact with environmental biologists who understand the historical/geographic population dynamics o Ancestral genetics are gone -­‐ need to preserve the species we have today to save the species of the future o Save everything because we don’t know what genes/alleles/characteristics might be needed in the future (changing environment, changing market). Page 34 SUMMARIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS o Random (not haphazard) sampling of the population and save it (from the center of origin is best). o Careful to avoid groups of the same origin. (ex: Bison from same founders) o Create pockets of herds… and let them be. Let selection do its thing o Only a few farmers keep the rare breeds – little incentive to keep these breeds, and they are reticent to allowing germ plasm collection. CAGR is facing a huge problem Question 2: What quality control procedures are needed to validate the collections? Can they be improved? Participants agreed that this question depends on the type of sample being collected, the purpose of the quality control, different species have different needs for proper cryopreservation, and concerns of contamination (what pathogens to be worried about). • Recommendation – 1: o Establish a defined workflow with quality control points incorporated within • this must be established from collection to transfer to storage to data-­‐
base of patient information, including phenotype. For quality control, will require sacrifice of some of the sample to check if they are good. While challenging, it was felt that post-­‐preservation quality assessment should be done within the limits of what we know right now. • Recommendation – 2: o Set an overall objective to meet in collections. Page 35 SUMMARIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS • Number of samples, criteria such as sperm motility, amount of biodiversity, record phenotype info from the tissue/gamete donor, and take DNA from the donor too. The Metadata of samples needs to be large. • Recommendation – 3: o Establish major recordkeeping facilities/procedures for huge volumes of data. • This is logistically challenging, but critical. Page 36 APPENDIX BREAKOUT SESSION GROUPS AND ROOMS Group 1 Rm 3 Nicolas Caron* Claudia Klein Pierre Comizzoli Rob McCorkell Greg Adams Michelle Marcotte Todd Shury David Hunter Christina Tollett Ana Rita Krause George Hall Group 2 Rm 18 Flavio Schenkel* Doug Griller Daniel MacPhee Carlos Carvalho Doug Freeman Brad Ramstead Lorne Hepworth Philip McLoughlin Kim McLean Pinette Robinson Crystalyn Legg St. Pierre Steve Yang Taryn Roberts Page 37 Group 3 Rm 12 Renaldo Cerri* Baljit Singh Jaswant Singh Gaby Mastromonaco Les Kroeger Jennifer Barfield Keri McFarlane Akanno Everestus Henry Soita Manuel Palomino Serena Caunce Myriam Cervantes Group 4 Rm 16 John Kastelic* Ali Honoramooz Peter Flood Murray Woodbury Mohammad Anzar Wes Olson Ricardo Simon Vianney Salmon Christopher Luby Ranjana Sharma Carlos Leonardi Elaine Bird Mary van der Porten APPENDIX BREAKOUT SESSION QUESTIONS Breakout Session I A. Inbreeding and Genetic Diversity: A Concern 1. Should we keep plains bison separate (buffer zone) from wood bison to preserve their genetics or let them potentially mix? What are the existing strategies for co-­‐maintenance of these two sub-­‐species? 2. With the availability of genomic markers, how or should they be used for selection of domestic and wild bovids? (Fast vs Slow inbreeding accumulation and pedigree vs genomic based selection). If time permits: 3. If genetic diversity is important then who is responsible for ensuring a healthy degree of genetic diversity in our wild and domestic bovids and other animals? Industry? Aboriginal Groups? Scientists? Private citizens? How do we get stakeholders involved in this and who owns the resulting progeny? Page 38 APPENDIX Breakout Session II B. Biobanks: How are they made and deployed? 1. What are the endpoints and traits we should look for during genetic preservation? 2. What quality control procedures are needed to validate the collections? Can they be improved? If time permits: 3. How do we exchange genetics with other countries? Are there any standardized protocols for international exchange and if so are they appropriate? Page 39