| Literature DB >> 24644423 |
Lifan Zhang1, Xiang Zhou2, Jennifer J Michal2, Bo Ding2, Rui Li1, Zhihua Jiang2.
Abstract
Birth weight is an economically important trait in pig production because it directly impacts piglet growth and survival rate. In the present study, we performed a genome wide survey of candidate genes and pathways associated with individual birth weight (IBW) using the Illumina PorcineSNP60 BeadChip on 24 high (HEBV) and 24 low estimated breeding value (LEBV) animals. These animals were selected from a reference population of 522 individuals produced by three sires and six dam lines, which were crossbreds with multiple breeds. After quality-control, 43,257 SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms), including 42,243 autosomal SNPs and 1,014 SNPs on chromosome X, were used in the data analysis. A total of 27 differentially selected regions (DSRs), including 1 on Sus scrofa chromosome 1 (SSC1), 1 on SSC4, 2 on SSC5, 4 on SSC6, 2 on SSC7, 5 on SSC8, 3 on SSC9, 1 on SSC14, 3 on SSC18, and 5 on SSCX, were identified to show the genome wide separations between the HEBV and LEBV groups for IBW in piglets. A DSR with the most number of significant SNPs (including 7 top 0.1% and 31 top 5% SNPs) was located on SSC6, while another DSR with the largest genetic differences in F ST was found on SSC18. These regions harbor known functionally important genes involved in growth and development, such as TNFRSF9 (tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 9), CA6 (carbonic anhydrase VI) and MDFIC (MyoD family inhibitor domain containing). A DSR rich in imprinting genes appeared on SSC9, which included PEG10 (paternally expressed 10), SGCE (sarcoglycan, epsilon), PPP1R9A (protein phosphatase 1, regulatory subunit 9A) and ASB4 (ankyrin repeat and SOCS box containing 4). More importantly, our present study provided evidence to support six quantitative trait loci (QTL) regions for pig birth weight, six QTL regions for average birth weight (ABW) and three QTL regions for litter birth weight (LBW) reported previously by other groups. Furthermore, gene ontology analysis with 183 genes harbored in these 27 DSRs suggested that protein, metal, ion and ATP binding, viral process and innate immune response present important pathways for deciphering their roles in fetal growth or development. Overall, our study provides useful information on candidate genes and pathways for regulating birth weight in piglets, thus improving our understanding of the genetic mechanisms involved in porcine embryonic or fetal development.Entities:
Keywords: Birth weight; Differentially selected regions; Pathways; Piglets.; PorcineSNP60 BeadChip
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24644423 PMCID: PMC3957079 DOI: 10.7150/ijbs.7744
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biol Sci ISSN: 1449-2288 Impact factor: 6.580
EBVs and IBW in the reference population.
| Population | Number of piglets | EBVs | IBW (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| All pigs | 522 | -0.03 ± 0.40 | 1.64 ± 0.35 |
| HEBV | 24 | 0.73 ± 0.17a | 2.29 ± 0.14a |
| LEBV | 24 | -0.80 ± 0.12b | 1.01 ± 0.18b |
| < 0.01 | < 0.01 |
HEBV: high estimated breeding value population; LEBV: low estimated breeding value population; IBW: individual birth weight. Values are shown as mean ± standard deviation. A student's t-test was used to compare the significant difference between HEBV and LEBV in EBVs and IBW, respectively. P value < 0.05 or 0.01 is considered statistically significant or extremely significant level, respectively. The different lowercase letters between HEBV and LEBV indicate that the difference reached the significance level of P < 0.05.
Differentially selected regions between high and low estimated breeding value populations.
| Region | PorcineSNP60 BeadChip Position (Mb) based on Sscrofa 10.2 assembly | Peak SNP ( | Top 0.1% | Top 5% | Candidate genes | Birth weight QTL number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | chr.1:163614679..163648076 | ASGA0004841(0.1031) | 2 | 0 | 5232 | |
| 2 | chr.4:33947049..34338016 | ALGA0024390(0.1129) | 2 | 6 | 369 | |
| ASGA0019178(0.1129) | ||||||
| 3 | chr.5:3829983..5355995 | M1GA0007314(0.1073) | 1 | 10 | ||
| 4 | chr.5:6836955..7331522 | M1GA0007436(0.1409) | 1 | 3 | 3189 | |
| 5 | chr.6:13486031..13812780 | H3GA0017575(0.1031) | 1 | 4 | ||
| 6 | chr.6:21038055..21721506 | ALGA0034850(0.1082) | 1 | 7 | ||
| 7 | chr.6:37040339..37139826 | H3GA0054966(0.1293) | 1 | 2 | ||
| 8 | chr.6:62369260..64915744 | ASGA0095271(0.1300) | 7 | 31 | 1012 | |
| ALGA0117367(0.1300) | ||||||
| MARC0067004(0.1300) | ||||||
| 9 | chr.7:11223472..11802513 | ASGA0031182(0.1031) | 1 | 1 | ||
| 10 | chr.7:57441888..58806078 | ALGA0042164(0.0813) | 0 | 12 | 187, 5197 | |
| 11 | chr.8:20367972..21000928 | MARC0112253(0.1268) | 2 | 3 | ||
| 12 | chr.8:93481336..94303744 | MARC0093552(0.1163) | 1 | 1 | ||
| 13 | chr.8:130415971..131295589 | ASGA0039827(0.1143) | 2 | 3 | ||
| 14 | chr.8:139592943..139593441 | MARC0054584(0.1163) | 1 | 1 | ||
| 15 | chr.8:142867557..143732188 | ALGA0050003(0.1282) | 2 | 7 | ||
| 16 | chr.9:60085650..61556267 | ASGA0102114(0.1185) | 3 | 10 | ||
| 17 | chr.9:81214756..82621184 | ALGA0053850(0.1258) | 1 | 3 | ||
| 18 | chr.9:95825746..97051426 | ALGA0054166(0.0857) | 0 | 16 | ||
| CASI0007446(0.0857) | ||||||
| ASGA0043971(0.0857) | ||||||
| 19 | chr.14:9010230..10254612 | ALGA0074932(0.1014) | 1 | 10 | ||
| 20 | chr.18:30963795..31174385 | ALGA0097763(0.1259) | 1 | 1 | ||
| 21 | chr.18:32516193..33286269 | INRA0055670(0.1420) | 1 | 2 | ||
| 22 | chr.18:55026817..55614254 | ALGA0098742(0.1204) | 1 | 2 | ||
| 23 | chr.X:8818096..10005053 | MARC0040504(0.1077) | 1 | 9 | ||
| 24 | chr.X:15592452..16389800 | ASGA0080878(0.1282) | 2 | 2 | ||
| 25 | chr.X:19357189..21123895 | H3GA0051592(0.1675) | 1 | 10 | ||
| 26 | chr.X:39671416..40276593 | ASGA0081063(0.1007) | 5 | 3 | ||
| M1GA0023676(0.1007) | ||||||
| H3GA0051711(0.1007) | ||||||
| H3GA0051713(0.1007) | ||||||
| MARC0069431(0.1007) | ||||||
| 27 | chr.X:136986704..137562054 | MARC0046821(0.1300) | 1 | 1 |
Note: The candidate genes are given within the SNPs of top significant 0.1% or peak SNP for each region.
Figure 1Genome-wide distribution of SNPs between high and low estimated breeding value populations in piglets. (A) A global view of FST value distributions on pig autosomes 1 - 18 and sex chromosome X. A representative DSR (region 8 of SSC6) with 7 top significant 0.1% and 31 top significant 5% SNPs was indicated. (B) Smoothed FST estimates in region 8 of SSC6 showing the strong selection signals between the HEBV and LEBV groups. (C) Gene allele frequencies of each locus in region 8 of SSC6 between the HEBV and LEBV groups. HEBV: high estimated breeding value; LEBV: low estimated breeding value.
Figure 2The distribution of selected genomic regions (DSRs) and QTL for birth weight across the pig genome (based on Sus scrofa 10.2 Assembly). All QTL information for birth weight was retrieved from the Animal QTLdb release 21 (http://cn.animalgenome.org/cgi-bin/QTLdb/index). A total of 44 QTL from Animal QTLdb database and 27 DSRs of this study for IBW were placed on each pig chromosome based on their locations. The QTLs were painted in blue along each chromosome and DSRs were presented in red bars, respectively.
Figure 3Gene ontology analysis related to the candidate genes from DSRs between high and low estimated breeding value populations. These 183 functional genes harbored in 27 DSRs for IBW in piglets were identified to represent a total of 264 molecular functions or 706 biological processes. Here the top 10 molecular functions and the top 10 biological processes are shown by brown and blue bars, respectively. Vertical axis represents gene ontology categories, while horizontal axis indicates the number of genes in each ontology category.