| Literature DB >> 19607654 |
Tamsyn M Crowley1, Volker R Haring, Simon Burggraaf, Robert J Moore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the threat of emerging infectious diseases such as avian influenza, whose natural hosts are thought to be a variety of wild water birds including duck, we are armed with very few genomic resources to investigate large scale immunological gene expression studies in avian species. Multiple options exist for conducting large gene expression studies in chickens and in this study we explore the feasibility of using one of these tools to investigate gene expression in other avian species.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19607654 PMCID: PMC2713436 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-10-S2-S3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Figure 1Phylogenetic orders of birds. Phylogenetic tree of all orders of birds displaying the relative evolutionary distance [20]. Red text indicates orders of birds that are represented in this study.
Summary statistics for avian samples hybridised to the whole genome chicken microarray
| Field | Chicken | Duck | Kookaburra | Tawny frogmouth | Magpie goose | Starling |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 65,245 | 62,490 | 64,000 | 64,259 | 65,129 | 64,993 | |
| 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | 10,000 | |
| 98 | 136 | 90 | 56 | 72 | 55 | |
| 15 | 22 | 14 | 9 | 11 | 8 | |
| 33,759 | 32,483 | 32,659 | 31,154 | 28,748 | 31,390 | |
| 78 | 75 | 76 | 72 | 67 | 73 |
*One standard deviation above the background intensity.
Figure 2Frequency of spot intensity. Frequency and range of average values of net normalised signals for each avian species tested on the whole genome chicken array are shown. Each plot is the average of at least two independent hybridisations.
A selection of chicken immune genes present on the whole genome chicken microarray
| Net Intensity | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IL-1β | RIGG20417 | ++ | +++ | ++ | + | ++ | + |
| IL-2 | RIGG20032 | + | ++ | +++ | + | + | ++ |
| IL-6 | RIGG20074 | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | + | +++ |
| IL-8 | RIGG20034 | x | ++ | x | ++ | x | x |
| IL-12α | RIGG20057 | +++ | + | ++ | + | ++ | ++ |
| IL-13 | RIGG20059 | +++ | ++ | ++ | + | +++ | ++ |
| IFNβ | RIGG20053 | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ |
| IFNγ | RIGG20054 | + | ++ | x | + | + | x |
| IFNλ | RIGG20055 | ++ | + | + | + | + | + |
| K203 | RIGG00459 | +++ | + | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ |
| CX3C | RIGG00463 | ++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | +++ | ++ |
| K60 (CXC chemokine) | RIGG00467 | ++ | +++ | +++ | ++ | + | + |
| CXCL14 | RIGG00466 | +++ | +++ | + | ++ | +++ | ++ |
| TLR2 | RIGG14974 | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | +++ | ++ |
| TLR15 | RIGG14349 | +++ | +++ | ++ | +++ | +++ | +++ |
| TLR21 | RIGG10152 | ++ | + | +++ | ++ | + | ++ |
| gallinacin 1 | RIGG20043 | +++ | +++ | ++ | +++ | +++ | +++ |
| gallinacin 3 | RIGG20044 | + | + | +++ | + | ++ | ++ |
| MHC class I | RIGG12432 | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ | +++ |
| MHC class II | RIGG16832 | ++ | + | ++ | + | + | ++ |
| caspase 1 | RIGG02179 | ++ | +++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | + |
| caspase 3 | RIGG15820 | x | ++ | + | + | x | x |
Positive intensity signals are represented by '+' according to the following scale (+ = <50, ++ = 51–100 and +++ = >150. Crosses 'x' represent signals that were deemed unreliable as they did not pass quality control. All results are based on averages of at least two independent hybridisations containing dual representation of each gene.
Figure 3Condition tree of H5N1 infected and uninfected ducks. Average signal log intensities are presented, highlighting the strong relationship between the H5N1 infected samples compared to the uninfected duck controls. Immune genes of particular interest are shown in black.