| Literature DB >> 19133138 |
C Berthouly1, G Leroy, T Nhu Van, H Hoang Thanh, B Bed'Hom, B Trong Nguyen, Chi C Vu, F Monicat, M Tixier-Boichard, E Verrier, J-C Maillard, X Rognon.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Previous studies suggested that multiple domestication events in South and South-East Asia (Yunnan and surrounding areas) and India have led to the genesis of modern domestic chickens. Ha Giang province is a northern Vietnamese region, where local chickens, such as the H'mong breed, and wild junglefowl coexist. The assumption was made that hybridisation between wild junglefowl and Ha Giang chickens may have occurred and led to the high genetic diversity previously observed. The objectives of this study were i) to clarify the genetic structure of the chicken population within the Ha Giang province and ii) to give evidence of admixture with G. gallus. A large survey of the molecular polymorphism for 18 microsatellite markers was conducted on 1082 chickens from 30 communes of the Ha Giang province (HG chickens). This dataset was combined with a previous dataset of Asian breeds, commercial lines and samples of Red junglefowl from Thailand and Vietnam (Ha Noï). Measurements of genetic diversity were estimated both within-population and between populations, and a step-by-step Bayesian approach was performed on the global data set.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19133138 PMCID: PMC2628941 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2156-10-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genet ISSN: 1471-2156 Impact factor: 2.797
Summary of genetic diversity measures across wild and domestic populations
| Code | Breed name | Sample Size | HExp | HObs | A | FIS |
| BS_LD | Broiler sire Line D | 30 | 0.46 | 0.45 | 2.5 | 0.01 |
| BS_LC | Broiler Sire Line C | 25 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 2.2 | -0.03 |
| BD_LB | Broiler dam Line B | 25 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 1.6 | 0.00 |
| BE_LC | Brown-egg Layer C | 25 | 0.41 | 0.36 | 2.2 | 0.11 |
| WE_LA | White-egg Layer A | 25 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 2.1 | -0.02 |
| Gg1 | 16 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 2.2 | 0.05 | |
| Gg2 | 15 | 0.62 | 0.66 | 2.4 | -0.06 | |
| Gg3 | 6 | 0.57 | 0.70 | 2.7 | -0.27 | |
| HT | Hua-Tung. Taiwan | 45 | 0.55 | 0.57 | 2.8 | -0.02 |
| JC | Ju-Chi. Taiwan | 48 | 0.40 | 0.42 | 2.0 | -0.05 |
| KM | Quemoy. Taiwan | 47 | 0.49 | 0.47 | 2.3 | 0.04 |
| HY | Hsin-Yi. Taiwan | 47 | 0.50 | 0.51 | 2.1 | -0.02 |
| SK | Shek-Ki. China | 46 | 0.44 | 0.40 | 2.0 | 0.10 |
| NG | Nagoya. Japan | 48 | 0.42 | 0.43 | 2.2 | -0.02 |
| Ha Giang (HG) detailed for the 30 communes | ||||||
| HG1 | Lung-Pu | 36 | 0.63 | 0.49 | 2.9 | 0.22 |
| HG2 | Ma-Le | 9 | 0.61 | 0.54 | 2.8 | 0.13 |
| HG4 | Lung-Cu | 44 | 0.62 | 0.52 | 2.9 | 0.17 |
| HG7 | Thai Phin Tung | 6 | 0.70 | 0.62 | 3.3 | 0.12 |
| HG16 | Pho-Cao | 39 | 0.57 | 0.52 | 2.7 | 0.08 |
| HG20 | Bach-Dich | 23 | 0.65 | 0.59 | 3.0 | 0.08 |
| HG25 | Na-Khe | 22 | 0.57 | 0.49 | 2.7 | 0.15 |
| HG40 | Tat-Nga | 26 | 0.69 | 0.57 | 3.2 | 0.18 |
| HG48 | Khau-Vai | 47 | 0.61 | 0.53 | 2.6 | 0.13 |
| HG49 | Tung-Vai | 52 | 0.61 | 0.55 | 2.8 | 0.09 |
| HG56 | Quyet-Tien | 24 | 0.58 | 0.52 | 2.8 | 0.11 |
| HG61 | Lung-Ho | 37 | 0.58 | 0.54 | 2.7 | 0.08 |
| HG65 | Du-Gia | 9 | 0.68 | 0.59 | 2.7 | 0.14 |
| HG72 | Ngoc-Duong | 16 | 0.64 | 0.59 | 3.1 | 0.07 |
| HG75 | Giap-Trung | 52 | 0.61 | 0.53 | 2.9 | 0.14 |
| HG85 | Po-Lo | 90 | 0.63 | 0.55 | 2.8 | 0.13 |
| HG88 | Minh-Ngoc | 32 | 0.64 | 0.57 | 2.9 | 0.11 |
| HG91 | Nan-Xin | 64 | 0.61 | 0.56 | 3.0 | 0.08 |
| HG95 | Phu-Linh | 32 | 0.61 | 0.51 | 2.8 | 0.17 |
| HG103 | Chi-Ca | 88 | 0.65 | 0.58 | 2.8 | 0.10 |
| HG108 | Thuong-Son | 16 | 0.62 | 0.53 | 3.0 | 0.14 |
| HG110 | Po Ly Ngai | 49 | 0.61 | 0.56 | 2.9 | 0.09 |
| HG113 | Yen-Cuong | 52 | 0.63 | 0.58 | 2.8 | 0.06 |
| HG114 | San Sa Ho | 44 | 0.62 | 0.58 | 2.9 | 0.06 |
| HG145 | Quang-Nguyen | 25 | 0.62 | 0.55 | 2.8 | 0.10 |
| HG146 | Trung Thanh | 14 | 0.61 | 0.54 | 2.8 | 0.13 |
| HG157 | Tan-Nam | 14 | 0.65 | 0.57 | 2.8 | 0.12 |
| HG169 | Quang-Minh | 15 | 0.62 | 0.54 | 3.0 | 0.15 |
| HG179 | Xuan-Giang | 88 | 0.64 | 0.55 | 2.9 | 0.14 |
| HG184 | Vinh-Phuc | 17 | 0.60 | 0.51 | 2.9 | 0.15 |
A: allelic richness; * pooled as one population in [8]
Figure 1Clustering diagrams of the 14 chicken populations and the reduced sample of the Ha Giang chickens obtained for . Each individual is represented by a vertical line, which is partitioned into K = 10 colored segments that represent the individual's estimated membership fractions in K clusters using the Q matrix of the run with the best similarity. Black lines separate individuals of different populations coded as defined in Table 1.
Figure 2Clustering diagrams of 14 chicken populations and the entire sample of the Ha Giang chickens obtained from .
Figure 3Neighbornet tree for the 44 populations using the Latter's genetic distance.