BACKGROUND: Genetic differences between Indian and Chinese rhesus macaques contribute to the phenotypic variance of clinical trials, including infection with SIVmac. The completion of the rhesus genome has facilitated the discovery of several thousand markers. METHODS: We developed a genome-wide SNP map for rhesus macaques containing 3869 validated markers with an average distance of 0.88 Mb and used the program VarLD to identify genomic areas with significant differences in linkage disequilibrium (LD) between Indian-derived and Chinese rhesus macaques. RESULTS: Forty-one statistically significant differences in LD between Chinese and Indian-origin rhesus were detected on chromosomes 1, 4, 5 and 11. The region of greatest LD difference was located on the proximal end of chromosome one, which also contained the genes ELAVL4, MAST2 and HIVEP3. CONCLUSION: These genomic areas provide entry to more detailed studies of gene function. This method is also applicable to the study of differences in biomarkers between regional populations of other species.
BACKGROUND: Genetic differences between Indian and Chinese rhesus macaques contribute to the phenotypic variance of clinical trials, including infection with SIVmac. The completion of the rhesus genome has facilitated the discovery of several thousand markers. METHODS: We developed a genome-wide SNP map for rhesus macaques containing 3869 validated markers with an average distance of 0.88 Mb and used the program VarLD to identify genomic areas with significant differences in linkage disequilibrium (LD) between Indian-derived and Chinese rhesus macaques. RESULTS: Forty-one statistically significant differences in LD between Chinese and Indian-origin rhesus were detected on chromosomes 1, 4, 5 and 11. The region of greatest LD difference was located on the proximal end of chromosome one, which also contained the genes ELAVL4, MAST2 and HIVEP3. CONCLUSION: These genomic areas provide entry to more detailed studies of gene function. This method is also applicable to the study of differences in biomarkers between regional populations of other species.
Authors: S Kanthaswamy; L Gill; J Satkoski; V Goyal; V Malladi; A Kou; K Basuta; L Sarkisyan; D George; D G Smith Journal: J Med Primatol Date: 2008-08-18 Impact factor: 0.667
Authors: Arthur S Lee; María Gutiérrez-Arcelus; George H Perry; Eric J Vallender; Welkin E Johnson; Gregory M Miller; Jan O Korbel; Charles Lee Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2008-01-07 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Jessica J Vamathevan; Samiul Hasan; Richard D Emes; Heather Amrine-Madsen; Dilip Rajagopalan; Simon D Topp; Vinod Kumar; Michael Word; Mark D Simmons; Steven M Foord; Philippe Sanseau; Ziheng Yang; Joanna D Holbrook Journal: BMC Evol Biol Date: 2008-10-06 Impact factor: 3.260
Authors: Jeremiah D Degenhardt; Paola de Candia; Adrien Chabot; Stuart Schwartz; Les Henderson; Binhua Ling; Meredith Hunter; Zhaoshi Jiang; Robert E Palermo; Michael Katze; Evan E Eichler; Mario Ventura; Jeffrey Rogers; Preston Marx; Yoav Gilad; Carlos D Bustamante Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2009-01-23 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Stephanie J Bissel; Kate Gurnsey; Hank P Jedema; Nicholas F Smith; Guoji Wang; Charles W Bradberry; Clayton A Wiley Journal: Retrovirology Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 4.602