| Literature DB >> 26418546 |
Guoqiang Yi1, Jingwei Yuan1, Huijuan Bi1, Wei Yan1, Ning Yang1, Lujiang Qu1.
Abstract
Since the feed cost is a major determinant of profitability in poultry industry, how to improve feed efficiency through genetic selection is an intriguing subject for breeders and producers. As a more suitable indicator assessing feed efficiency, residual feed intake (RFI) is defined as the difference between observed and expected feed intake based on maintenance and growth. However, the genetic mechanisms responsible for RFI in chickens are still less well appreciated. In this study, we investigated the duodenal transcriptome architecture of extreme RFI phenotypes in the six brown-egg dwarf hens (three per group) using RNA sequencing technology. Among all mapped reads, an average of 75.62% fell into annotated exons, 5.50% were located in introns, and the remaining 18.88% were assigned to intergenic regions. In total, we identified 41 promising candidate genes by differential expression analysis between the low and high RFI groups. Furthermore, qRT-PCR assays were designed for 10 randomly chosen genes, and nine (90.00%) were successfully validated. Functional annotation analyses revealed that these significant genes belong to several specific biological functions related to digestibility, metabolism and biosynthesis processes as well as energy homeostasis. We also predicted 253 intergenic coding transcripts, and these transcripts were mainly involved in fundamental biological regulation and metabolism processes. Our findings provided a pioneering exploration of biological basis underlying divergent RFI using RNA-Seq, which pinpoints promising candidate genes of functional relevance, is helpful to guide future breeding strategies to optimize feed efficiency and assists in improving the current gene annotation in chickens.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26418546 PMCID: PMC4721924 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136765
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Descriptive statistics of feed efficiency and relevant traits.
| Trait | First stage (32 to 44 wk of age) | Second stage (57 to 60 wk of age) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | Low | High | |
|
| 84.42 ± 8.77 | 99.92 ± 4.46 | 88.36 ± 6.88 | 120.56 ± 7.11 |
|
| 1336.43 ± 193.30 | 1270.10 ± 112.71 | 1394.42 ± 147.62 | 1401.03 ± 192.30 |
|
| 1.69 ± 0.79 | 1.20 ± 0.58 | 0.38 ± 0.94 | 0.89 ± 2.03 |
|
| 40.59 ± 4.06 | 43.27 ± 0.28 | 42.54 ± 3.03 | 42.80 ± 2.92 |
|
| -7.83 ± 0.79 | 7.98 ± 2.77 | -11.77 ± 0.66 | 19.20 ± 4.13 |
|
| 2.08 ± 0.01 | 2.31 ± 0.10 | 2.01 ± 0.03 | 2.72 ± 0.03 |
Abbreviations: FI = daily feed intake; MBW = mean body weight; BWG = daily body weight gain; EMD = daily egg mass; RFI = residual feed intake; FCR = feed conversion ratio.
Summary statistics for sequence quality and alignment information of six samples.
| Statistic | DW1 | DW2 | DW3 | DW4 | DW5 | DW6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Low | Low | Low | High | High | High |
|
| 80,258,102 | 86,305,796 | 101,028,434 | 81,602,282 | 88,785,322 | 75,829,126 |
|
| 75,513,580 | 81,073,172 | 95,231,110 | 77,507,042 | 83,282,532 | 71,345,656 |
|
| 96.62 | 96.57 | 96.53 | 96.69 | 96.49 | 96.70 |
|
| 90.06 | 90.02 | 89.84 | 90.11 | 89.76 | 90.30 |
|
| 49.31 | 48.70 | 48.99 | 48.60 | 48.98 | 48.35 |
|
| 64,983,672 | 70,550,893 | 83,756,195 | 67,730,446 | 72,506,607 | 62,959,041 |
|
| 61,806,076 | 66,466,874 | 79,010,564 | 64,942,605 | 68,247,434 | 59,232,077 |
|
| 3,177,596 | 4,084,019 | 4,745,631 | 2,787,841 | 4,259,173 | 3,726,964 |
|
| 16,046,950 | 14,852,291 | 18,975,442 | 12,296,897 | 14,147,055 | 16,682,423 |
|
| 86.06 | 87.02 | 87.95 | 87.39 | 87.06 | 88.25 |
|
| 200 (57) | 211 (55) | 201 (57) | 189 (51) | 196 (54) | 198 (57) |
Q20 and Q30 represent the proportion of bases with a Phred quality score greater than 20 and 30, respectively.
Fig 1The percentage of reads mapped to exonic, intronic and intergenic regions.
Detailed information of differentially expressed genes responsible for divergent RFI.
| Ensembl gene ID | Gene name | Chr | Log2 FC (Low / High) |
| FDR | Reported QTL (ID) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ENSGALG00000007596 |
| 12 | 1.79 | 3.30E-09 | 4.29E-05 | |
| ENSGALG00000000498 |
| 27 | 0.83 | 9.51E-08 | 0.000619 | |
| ENSGALG00000007028 |
| 4 | -1.65 | 3.10E-07 | 0.001344 | |
| ENSGALG00000005065 |
| 8 | -0.78 | 1.53E-06 | 0.004961 | |
| ENSGALG00000009341 |
| 14 | -1.00 | 5.10E-06 | 0.007383 | |
| ENSGALG00000009372 |
| 9 | -1.02 | 7.95E-06 | 0.007383 | |
| ENSGALG00000013738 |
| 1 | 0.72 | 6.01E-06 | 0.007383 | |
| ENSGALG00000016400 |
| 3 | 1.09 | 7.61E-06 | 0.007383 | |
| ENSGALG00000019211 |
| 1 | 1.38 | 3.62E-06 | 0.007383 | FCR QTL (1821) |
| ENSGALG00000020488 |
| 5 | 0.71 | 7.77E-06 | 0.007383 | |
| ENSGALG00000021040 |
| 14 | 1.02 | 4.88E-06 | 0.007383 | |
| ENSGALG00000021262 |
| 6 | 0.66 | 6.44E-06 | 0.007383 | |
| ENSGALG00000021274 |
| 17 | 1.01 | 7.21E-06 | 0.007383 | |
| ENSGALG00000009560 |
| 4 | 0.63 | 8.90E-06 | 0.007719 | FCR QTL (6688), RFI QTL (6689) |
| ENSGALG00000006558 |
| 2 | -1.01 | 1.09E-05 | 0.008112 | FI QTL (1870) |
| ENSGALG00000014281 |
| 4 | -1.22 | 1.15E-05 | 0.008112 | |
| ENSGALG00000015192 |
| 28 | -1.45 | 1.19E-05 | 0.008112 | |
| ENSGALG00000027166 |
| 1 | 1.06 | 1.18E-05 | 0.008112 | |
| ENSGALG00000002042 |
| 14 | -0.83 | 1.94E-05 | 0.012594 | |
| ENSGALG00000026299 |
| 1 | 0.91 | 2.57E-05 | 0.015886 | |
| ENSGALG00000002643 |
| 8 | -0.69 | 2.82E-05 | 0.016463 | |
| ENSGALG00000015353 |
| 1 | -0.95 | 2.91E-05 | 0.016463 | |
| ENSGALG00000009006 |
| 2 | 0.60 | 3.05E-05 | 0.016505 | |
| ENSGALG00000003972 |
| 13 | 0.92 | 4.55E-05 | 0.022748 | |
| ENSGALG00000005441 |
| Z | -0.94 | 4.76E-05 | 0.022906 | |
| ENSGALG00000007996 |
| 7 | -0.94 | 5.33E-05 | 0.024778 | |
| ENSGALG00000005453 |
| 11 | -0.96 | 5.56E-05 | 0.024925 | FCR QTL (6734) |
| ENSGALG00000003719 |
| 11 | -1.12 | 6.82E-05 | 0.028419 | |
| ENSGALG00000010311 |
| 1 | -0.88 | 6.74E-05 | 0.028419 | RFI QTL (6674), FCR QTL (6675) |
| ENSGALG00000021235 |
| 13 | 1.11 | 6.99E-05 | 0.028419 | |
| ENSGALG00000007412 |
| 24 | 1.03 | 8.06E-05 | 0.031747 | |
| ENSGALG00000006818 |
| 24 | -1.17 | 8.89E-05 | 0.033025 | |
| ENSGALG00000011227 |
| 4 | 0.64 | 0.000101 | 0.035376 | |
| ENSGALG00000011805 |
| 4 | 0.73 | 9.81E-05 | 0.035376 | |
| ENSGALG00000009791 |
| 3 | -1.10 | 0.000111 | 0.036161 | |
| ENSGALG00000017283 |
| 1 | -1.15 | 0.00011 | 0.036161 | |
| ENSGALG00000017204 |
| 1 | -1.33 | 0.000128 | 0.040612 | |
| ENSGALG00000013846 |
| 3 | -1.23 | 0.000134 | 0.041432 | |
| ENSGALG00000023925 |
| 6 | 0.81 | 0.000148 | 0.044899 | |
| ENSGALG00000014700 |
| Z | -0.98 | 0.000157 | 0.045423 | |
| ENSGALG00000020679 |
| 6 | 0.81 | 0.000155 | 0.045423 |
Abbreviations: Chr = chromosome; FC = fold change; FDR = false discovery rate; FCR = feed conversion ratio; RFI = residual feed intake; FI = feed intake.
aIdentification of the gene according to Ensembl genes database 76
Fig 2Volcano plot reporting P values against fold changes.
The Volcano plot indicates-log10 (P-value) for genome-wide genes (Y-axis) plotted against their respective log2 (fold change) (X-axis). The red and blue dots represent significantly up- and down-regulated genes between the low and high residual feed intake groups respectively.
Fig 3Illustrating of qRT-PCR confirmation results for 10 selected differentially expressed genes.
(A) X-axis represents 10 selected genes for qRT-PCR assays and Y-axis represents the log2 (fold change) derived from RNA-Seq and qRT-PCR. (B) Regression analysis of the log2 (fold change) values between RNA-Seq and qRT-PCR.
Summary of transcripts assembled (TA) with Cufflinks in each sample.
| Class code | DW1 | DW2 | DW3 | DW4 | DW5 | DW6 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TA | % | TA | % | TA | % | TA | % | TA | % | TA | % | |
|
| 16,979 | 46.10 | 17,074 | 44.69 | 17,060 | 46.72 | 17,034 | 43.09 | 17,016 | 45.37 | 16,971 | 45.35 |
|
| 4 | 0.01 | 3 | 0.01 | 3 | 0.01 | 4 | 0.01 | 5 | 0.01 | 4 | 0.01 |
|
| 751 | 2.04 | 881 | 2.31 | 751 | 2.06 | 805 | 2.04 | 739 | 1.97 | 604 | 1.61 |
|
| 1,609 | 4.37 | 2,215 | 5.80 | 1,811 | 4.96 | 3,711 | 9.39 | 2,241 | 5.98 | 2,338 | 6.25 |
|
| 10,196 | 27.68 | 9,934 | 26.00 | 9,537 | 26.12 | 9,989 | 25.27 | 10,054 | 26.81 | 10,031 | 26.81 |
|
| 393 | 1.07 | 346 | 0.91 | 343 | 0.94 | 341 | 0.86 | 363 | 0.97 | 411 | 1.10 |
|
| 972 | 2.64 | 996 | 2.61 | 881 | 2.41 | 1,044 | 2.64 | 1,025 | 2.73 | 1,009 | 2.70 |
|
| 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 0.01 | 1 | 0.00 | 1 | 0.00 |
|
| 5,771 | 15.67 | 6,575 | 17.21 | 5,951 | 16.30 | 6,391 | 16.17 | 5,899 | 15.73 | 5,884 | 15.72 |
|
| 155 | 0.42 | 179 | 0.47 | 176 | 0.48 | 206 | 0.52 | 161 | 0.43 | 169 | 0.45 |
|
| 36,830 | 100.00 | 38,203 | 100.00 | 36,513 | 100.00 | 39,527 | 100.00 | 37,504 | 100.00 | 37,422 | 100.00 |
aDW1 to DW3 correspond to chickens of the low residual feed intake group, while DW4 to DW6 correspond to chickens of the high residual feed intake group
bClass codes described by Cuffcompare: " = " Complete match of intron chain, "c " Contained in the reference annotation, "e" Possible pre-mRNA fragment, "i " An single exon transcript falling entirely within a reference intron, "j " New isoform, "o" Unknown, generic overlap with reference, "p" Possible polymerase run-on fragment, “s” An intron of the transfrag overlaps a reference intron on the opposite strand, "u" Unknown, intergenic transcript, “x” Exonic overlap with reference on the opposite strand.
Fig 4Histogram presentation of gene ontology (GO) term for putative coding transcripts.
The GO terms were classified into different categories at level 2.