| Literature DB >> 20500888 |
Wendy J M Smith1, Yutao Li, Aaron Ingham, Eliza Collis, Sean M McWilliam, Tom J Dixon, Belinda J Norris, Suzanne I Mortimer, Robert J Moore, Antonio Reverter.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fleece rot (FR) and body-strike of Merino sheep by the sheep blowfly Lucilia cuprina are major problems for the Australian wool industry, causing significant losses as a result of increased management costs coupled with reduced wool productivity and quality. In addition to direct effects on fleece quality, fleece rot is a major predisposing factor to blowfly strike on the body of sheep. In order to investigate the genetic drivers of resistance to fleece rot, we constructed a combined ovine-bovine cDNA microarray of almost 12,000 probes including 6,125 skin expressed sequence tags and 5,760 anonymous clones obtained from skin subtracted libraries derived from fleece rot resistant and susceptible animals. This microarray platform was used to profile the gene expression changes between skin samples of six resistant and six susceptible animals taken immediately before, during and after FR induction. Mixed-model equations were employed to normalize the data and 155 genes were found to be differentially expressed (DE). Ten DE genes were selected for validation using real-time PCR on independent skin samples. The genomic regions of a further 5 DE genes were surveyed to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) that were genotyped across three populations for their associations with fleece rot resistance.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20500888 PMCID: PMC2886023 DOI: 10.1186/1746-6148-6-27
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Vet Res ISSN: 1746-6148 Impact factor: 2.741
Figure 1The distribution of residual fleece rot scores determined in three flocks of sheep: A) Armidale Mapping Flock; B) Trangie Susceptible Line; C) Trangie Resistant Line. For each flock the pre-wetting (left panels), post-wetting (middle panels) and difference between pre-wet and post-wet scores are presented (right panels). At each data collection time the sheep were scored using the conventional 0 to 5 scoring system. For each animal this score was then converted to a residual fleece rot score, by subtracting a correction factor that accounts for significant environmental and polygenetic effects. For example, if the original fleece rot score was 1 but the correction value for that animal was 3 the residual fleece rot score would be (1-3) or -2. Hence, the spread of residual scores does not fall within the original 0 to 5 range, but instead is scattered around zero.
Figure 2Venn diagram relating the distribution of DE genes across three time points (T0, T1 and T2). The identity of genes found to be DE in more than one time point is given in the enclosed boxes along with their fold change expression between the RES and the SUS lines of sheep. For example, there are two genes (DNAJA1 and NOPE) that were DE at T0 and T1. DNAJA1 showed a significant 4.42 and 2.32-fold increase in RES sheep at T0 and T1, and a non-significant -1.52-fold decrease at T2. The size of the circles and amount of intersection relates to the number of DE in each area.
Figure 3Heat map of the hierarchical clustering of the 155 DE genes across the three time points (T0, T1 and T2) in each of the two lines (RES and SUS sheep). Green and red indicate low and high expression, respectively. Arrows indicate the location of genes that were further scrutinized by qRT-PCR validation and SNP association analyses.
qRT-PCR Results: Goodness of fit as measured by the percent of the variation (R2) in threshold cycles (Ct) explained by the ANOVA1 model and Ct least-squares means2 for 10 DE genes across two genotypic lines (Resistant and Susceptible) and three time points (T0, T1, T2).
| Gene | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Resistant | Susceptible | ||||||
| T0 | T1 | T2 | T0 | T1 | T2 | ||
| ABCC11 | 43.7 | 27.7a | 29.3b | 25.8c | 27.1a,c | 27.0a,c | 26.5a,c |
| FABP4 | 88.8 | 32.6a | 32.9a | 30.5b | 26.8c | 26.3c | 26.9c |
| FADS1 | 50.7 | 23.6a | 23.14a | 22.0b | 23.9a | 24.4a | 22.4a,b |
| HMGCR | 57.3 | 25.4a | 27.4a | 25.2a | 26.6a | 31.9b | 20.5c |
| KLK10 | 47.6 | 25.8a | 28.6b | 27.5a | 25.9a | 28.0a,b | 21.3c |
| KRT5 | 80.2 | 24.2a | 32.0b | 26.6a | 21.8c | 22.6c | 18.1d |
| LYZ | 61.5 | 33.3a | 34.7a | 34.6a | 30.4b | 33.1a,b | 24.3c |
| S100A7 | 67.1 | 35.6a,b | 35.3b | 37.1a | 32.1c | 31.1c,d | 29.3c |
| SPARC | 55.2 | 18.8a | 21.0b | 19.7a | 20.6a | 23.0c | 16.8d |
| ZMYM2 | 52.0 | 30.2a,b | 32.6a | 32.4a | 29.3b | 33.8c | 23.7d |
1We fitted an overall ANOVA model to obtain the least-square means of each gene and ten gene-specific ANOVA models to compute the R2. See Materials and Methods for details.
2Within a row, least-square means with different superscripts are statistically different at P < 0.05 significance level.
Number of individuals genotyped (n), minor allele frequency (MAF), and P-value (P) against the test for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium for the 16 SNP used in the association studies across three populations.
| SNP | Armidale | Trangie Susceptible | Trangie Resistant | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | MAF | P | n | MAF | P | n | MAF | P | |
| ABCIn0150 | 69 | 0.43 | 0.633 | 137 | 0.45 | 1.000 | 149 | 0.19 | 0.290 |
| ABCIn0270 | 71 | 0.31 | 0.583 | 81 | 0.27 | 0.009 | 80 | 0.39 | 0.000 |
| ABCex0667 | 128 | 0.17 | 0.764 | 196 | 0.26 | 1.000 | 233 | 0.40 | 0.344 |
| FABIn20115 | 147 | 0.22 | 0.002 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| FABIn20237 | 153 | 0.31 | 0.347 | 150 | 0.38 | 0.058 | 192 | 0.44 | 0.029 |
| FABIn30227 | 148 | 0.23 | 0.009 | 156 | 0.02 | 1.000 | 161 | 0.01 | 1.000 |
| FABIn30360 | 172 | 0.33 | 0.607 | 182 | 0.38 | 0.000 | 230 | 0.46 | 0.002 |
| FABIn30420 | 147 | 0.10 | 0.362 | 184 | 0.02 | 1.000 | 207 | 0.07 | 1.000 |
| FAD1g20645 | 145 | 0.28 | 0.000 | 150 | 0.13 | 0.133 | 167 | 0.06 | 1.000 |
| FBLIn100090 | 58 | 0.37 | 0.006 | 16 | 0.34 | 0.093 | 26 | 0.23 | 0.280 |
| FBLIn120135 | 119 | 0.36 | 0.031 | 161 | 0.40 | 0.000 | 162 | 0.46 | 0.003 |
| FBLIn120280 | 148 | 0.40 | 0.002 | 160 | 0.45 | 0.017 | 215 | 0.37 | 0.660 |
| FBLIn120995 | 137 | 0.48 | 0.004 | 124 | 0.50 | 0.000 | 122 | 0.48 | 0.000 |
| FBLs10075 | 136 | 0.32 | 0.435 | 116 | 0.42 | 0.571 | 133 | 0.35 | 0.705 |
| HMGIn40390 | 187 | 0.38 | 0.000 | 196 | 0.43 | 0.189 | 230 | 0.40 | 0.003 |
| HMGIn60110 | 117 | 0.46 | 0.000 | 198 | 0.20 | 0.007 | 208 | 0.31 | 0.000 |
SNP association results for the pre-wetting trials in three populations.
| SNP | Armidale | Trangie Susceptible | Trangie Resistant | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ß | R2 | P | ß | R2 | P | ß | R2 | P | |
| ABCIn0150 | -0.12 | 2.31 | 0.212 | -0.03 | 0.04 | 0.810 | 0.05 | 0.40 | 0.442 |
| ABCIn0270 | -0.13 | 2.68 | 0.172 | 0.27 | 3.26 | 0.107 | 0.02 | 0.70 | 0.461 |
| ABCex0667 | 0.18 | 2.79 | 0.059 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.966 | -0.01 | 0.04 | 0.759 |
| FABIn20115 | 0.09 | 0.68 | 0.322 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| FABIn20237 | -0.08 | 0.91 | 0.240 | 0.11 | 0.58 | 0.352 | |||
| FABIn30227 | -0.07 | 0.52 | 0.386 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.955 | |||
| FABIn30360 | 0.08 | 0.91 | 0.213 | -0.10 | 0.42 | 0.382 | |||
| FABIn30420 | -0.11 | 0.64 | 0.336 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.677 | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.945 |
| FAD1g20645 | 0.04 | 0.14 | 0.651 | -0.08 | 0.12 | 0.672 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.624 |
| FBLIn100090 | -0.09 | 0.97 | 0.461 | -0.17 | 2.31 | 0.574 | 0.03 | 5.96 | 0.229 |
| FBLIn120135 | -0.04 | 0.20 | 0.631 | -0.03 | 0.03 | 0.820 | |||
| FBLIn120280 | 0.04 | 0.24 | 0.558 | -0.10 | 0.46 | 0.393 | |||
| FBLIn120995 | -0.03 | 0.15 | 0.657 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.733 | |||
| FBLs10075 | -0.01 | 0.02 | 0.884 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.876 | |||
| HMGIn40390 | 0.05 | 0.26 | 0.487 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.953 | 0.04 | 0.50 | 0.287 |
| HMGIn60110 | -0.06 | 0.13 | 0.620 | -0.02 | 0.05 | 0.757 | |||
Statistics are as follows: ß: Regression coefficient of fleece rot score on genotype (indicating the average change in fleece rot score for each copy of an allele); R2: Percentage of phenotypic variation explained by the SNP (%); P-value: Probability value associated with the test ß = 0. Statistics corresponding to significant associations are highlighted in bold type.
SNP association results for the post-wetting trials in three populations.
| SNP | Armidale | Trangie Susceptible | Trangie Resistant | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ß | R2 | P | ß | R2 | P | ß | R2 | P | |
| ABCIn0150 | -0.10 | 0.23 | 0.696 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.882 | -0.02 | 0.02 | 0.873 |
| ABCIn0270 | -0.35 | 3.00 | 0.149 | 0.15 | 1.89 | 0.222 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.838 |
| ABCex0667 | 0.23 | 0.64 | 0.369 | -0.09 | 0.56 | 0.295 | 0.06 | 0.19 | 0.505 |
| FABIn20115 | -0.13 | 0.20 | 0.594 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| FABIn20237 | 0.13 | 0.34 | 0.475 | -0.15 | 1.55 | 0.129 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.919 |
| FABIn30227 | 0.15 | 0.28 | 0.522 | -0.21 | 0.25 | 0.539 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.999 |
| FABIn30360 | -0.11 | 0.22 | 0.543 | 0.18 | 1.97 | 0.059 | -0.02 | 0.03 | 0.804 |
| FABIn30420 | 0.14 | 0.13 | 0.659 | -0.30 | 0.62 | 0.287 | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.705 |
| FAD1g20645 | 0.23 | 0.57 | 0.368 | -0.18 | 1.17 | 0.187 | -0.24 | 0.82 | 0.245 |
| FBLIn100090 | 0.19 | 0.45 | 0.615 | -0.13 | 1.09 | 0.700 | -0.05 | 0.10 | 0.879 |
| FBLIn120135 | -0.19 | 0.60 | 0.403 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.965 | -0.21 | 2.35 | 0.052 |
| FBLIn120280 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.926 | -0.08 | 0.43 | 0.409 | 0.10 | 0.58 | 0.266 |
| FBLIn120995 | 0.09 | 0.30 | 0.547 | 0.10 | 0.50 | 0.438 | |||
| FBLs10075 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 0.722 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.844 | |||
| HMGIn40390 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.947 | -0.11 | 0.93 | 0.180 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.714 |
| HMGIn60110 | -0.22 | 0.62 | 0.401 | -0.01 | 0.01 | 0.907 | 0.10 | 0.38 | 0.376 |
Statistics are as follows: ß: Regression coefficient of fleece rot score on genotype (indicating the average change in fleece rot score for each copy of an allele); R2: Percentage of phenotypic variation explained by the SNP (%); P-value: Probability value associated with the test ß = 0. Statistics corresponding to significant associations are highlighted in bold type.
SNP association results for the difference between the post-wetting and the pre-wetting trials in three populations.
| SNP | Armidale | Trangie Susceptible | Trangie Resistant | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ß | R2 | P | ß | R2 | P | ß | R2 | P | |
| ABCIn0150 | -0.01 | 0.00 | 0.973 | 0.14 | 0.30 | 0.528 | -0.03 | 0.03 | 0.841 |
| ABCIn0270 | -0.28 | 2.04 | 0.235 | -0.32 | 1.32 | 0.307 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.993 |
| ABCex0667 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.829 | -0.22 | 0.61 | 0.276 | 0.09 | 0.32 | 0.388 |
| FABIn20115 | -0.21 | 0.58 | 0.361 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| FABIn20237 | 0.15 | 0.54 | 0.368 | 0.09 | 0.40 | 0.386 | |||
| FABIn30227 | 0.21 | 0.66 | 0.328 | -0.22 | 0.05 | 0.781 | 0.44 | 0.33 | 0.472 |
| FABIn30360 | -0.13 | 0.40 | 0.409 | -0.10 | 0.36 | 0.362 | |||
| FABIn30420 | 0.21 | 0.36 | 0.472 | -0.71 | 0.65 | 0.276 | 0.10 | 0.12 | 0.614 |
| FAD1g20645 | 0.17 | 0.37 | 0.470 | -0.14 | 0.12 | 0.676 | -0.33 | 1.14 | 0.169 |
| FBLIn100090 | 0.25 | 0.90 | 0.478 | -0.32 | 1.22 | 0.684 | -0.17 | 0.98 | 0.63 |
| FBLIn120135 | -0.19 | 0.72 | 0.359 | 0.23 | 0.54 | 0.353 | -0.09 | 0.29 | 0.493 |
| FBLIn120280 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.886 | -0.12 | 0.18 | 0.596 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.711 |
| FBLIn120995 | -0.09 | 0.07 | 0.774 | -0.06 | 0.10 | 0.729 | |||
| FBLs10075 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.896 | 0.09 | 0.10 | 0.730 | -0.14 | 0.87 | 0.285 |
| HMGIn40390 | -0.05 | 0.05 | 0.772 | -0.18 | 0.46 | 0.343 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.861 |
| HMGIn60110 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.985 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.906 | 0.11 | 0.36 | 0.387 |
Statistics are as follows: ß: Regression coefficient of fleece rot score on genotype (indicating the average change in fleece rot score for each copy of an allele); R2: Percentage of phenotypic variation explained by the SNP (%); P-value: Probability value associated with the test ß = 0. Statistics corresponding to significant associations are highlighted in bold type.
Figure 4Schematic of fleece rot induction and skin biopsies. The first skin biopsies were taken on the first day (T0) prior to commencement of the five day regime of simulated rainfall. Subsequent skin biopsies were taken 2-3 days into the wetting regime (T1) and following a recovery period of 11 days from the time that the wetting regime had begun (T2).
Figure 5General microarray hybridisation loop design. The design configuration is a loop design that compares the high and low resistant animals to the high and low susceptible animals within and across time points of fleece rot induction (T0-T1) and recovery (T2). Arrows indicate hybridisations and go from the samples labelled with red (Cy5) to the samples labelled with green (Cy3) dye.
Sequences (5'-3') of forward and reverse primers used in the real-time PCR.
| Gene | Forward primer sequence | Reverse primer sequence |
|---|---|---|
| ABCC11 | CAAGTTCTCGGTTATCCCTCAA | AGAAGTTTGAGCCATTTTCCAC |
| FABP4 | TGAAATCACTCCAGATGACAGG | TCAATATCCCTTGGCTTATGCT |
| FADS1 | GACCGAAAGGTGTACAACATCA | ATTCTTAGTGGGCTCAAAGCTG |
| HMGCR | TAGAGGCACAGGAACCTGAAAT | GGCGAATAGATACACCTCGTTC |
| KLK10 | CCATGCACACCTGCTAACAT | CTTGCCCAAGGTCACACAG |
| KRT5 | AGGAGGCTCCATTTGGTCTC | AAGAGGTCACCGTCAACCAG |
| LYZ | ACTCTGAAGAGACTCGGATTGG | GTTAACAGCTCTTGGGGTTTTG |
| S100A7 | TGACATCTCCTCTGATCAGCTC | CAAGTATTGTCTGCCCCTTTTC |
| SPARC | CTTGCCTGATGAGACAGAAGTG | GTGTTGTTCTCGTCCAGTTCG |
| ZMYM2 | TTTTTCCAGTGCCTAAACACAGT | AGCATACTTCCAGACGGGTCA |