| Literature DB >> 26796620 |
Wanchang Zhang1, Junjie Zhang2, Leilei Cui3, Junwu Ma4, Congying Chen5, Huashui Ai6, Xianhua Xie7, Lin Li8, Shijun Xiao9, Lusheng Huang10, Jun Ren11, Bin Yang12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fatty acid composition in muscle is an important factor that affects the nutritive value and taste of pork. To investigate the genetic architecture of fatty acid composition of pork, we measured fatty acid contents in longissimus dorsi muscle of 1244 pigs from three divergent populations and conducted genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for fatty acid contents.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26796620 PMCID: PMC4722735 DOI: 10.1186/s12711-016-0184-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genet Sel Evol ISSN: 0999-193X Impact factor: 4.297
Summary statistics for fatty acid composition in three pig populations
| Trait | Laiwu | Erhualian | DLY | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | Mean ± SD |
| N | Mean ± SD |
| N | Mean ± SD |
| |
| Myristic (C14:0) | 305 | 1.34 ± 0.12 | 0.67 ± 0.09 | 331 | 1.34 ± 0.18 | 0.81 ± 0.08 | 608 | 1.31 ± 0.12 | 0.51 ± 0.08 |
| Palmitic (C16:0) | 305 | 26.50 ± 1.00 | 0.56 ± 0.08 | 331 | 25.00 ± 1.30 | 0.73 ± 0.08 | 608 | 23.88 ± 1.22 | 0.56 ± 0.08 |
| Palmitoleic (C16:1 | 305 | 3.87 ± 0.60 | 0.70 ± 0.06 | 331 | 3.62 ± 0.68 | 0.77 ± 0.08 | 608 | 3.91 ± 0.46 | 0.67 ± 0.09 |
| Stearic (C18:0) | 305 | 12.09 ± 1.11 | 0.57 ± 0.09 | 331 | 12.58 ± 1.25 | 0.75 ± 0.09 | 608 | 11.36 ± 1.14 | 0.64 ± 0.09 |
| Oleic (C18:1 | 305 | 46.42 ± 1.58 | 0.48 ± 0.10 | 331 | 46.17 ± 2.26 | 0.76 ± 0.09 | 608 | 45.36 ± 2.04 | 0.46 ± 0.09 |
| Linoleic (C18:2 | 305 | 3.63 ± 0.80 | 0.01 ± 0.05 | 331 | 4.46 ± 0.89 | 0.48 ± 0.10 | 608 | 5.40 ± 1.51 | 0.29 ± 0.09 |
| Linolenic (C18:3 | 305 | 0.11 ± 0.03 | 0.12 ± 0.09 | 331 | 0.13 ± 0.03 | 0.45 ± 0.10 | 608 | 0.19 ± 0.07 | 0.26 ± 0.09 |
| Arachidic (C20:0) | 305 | 0.19 ± 0.03 | 0.72 ± 0.11 | 331 | 0.25 ± 0.05 | 0.73 ± 0.08 | 608 | 0.19 ± 0.03 | 0.77 ± 0.08 |
| Eicosenoic (C20:1 | 305 | 0.75 ± 0.15 | 0.82 ± 0.07 | 331 | 0.74 ± 0.13 | 0.63 ± 0.10 | 608 | 0.86 ± 0.11 | 0.46 ± 0.08 |
| Eicosadienoic (C20:2 | 305 | 0.20 ± 0.04 | 0.18 ± 0.10 | 331 | 0.25 ± 0.05 | 0.59 ± 0.09 | 608 | 0.28 ± 0.07 | 0.43 ± 0.09 |
| Homolonolenic (C20:3 | 305 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.26 ± 0.10 | 331 | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 0.39 ± 0.10 | 602 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.18 ± 0.08 |
| Arachidonic (C20:4 | 305 | 0.18 ± 0.08 | 0.20 ± 0.10 | 331 | 0.25 ± 0.09 | 0.46 ± 0.10 | 608 | 0.48 ± 0.29 | 0.13 ± 0.07 |
N stands for the number of individuals in each population
h 2 represents the heritability of each trait for each population; heritabilities were estimated using the −l mm procedure of GEMMA based on genome-wide SNP genotypes [16]
Fig. 1Heatmap of phenotypic correlations between 12 major fatty acids in three populations
Fig. 2Significant GWAS SNPs and candidate genes for fatty acid composition in Erhualian, Laiwu and DLY pigs. a SNPs that surpass the genome-wide significant threshold are denoted with different colors in each population (red for DLY, green for Erhualian, and blue for Laiwu). Candidate genes at several genome-wide significant loci are indicated. Panels b–g represent the significant regional plots for the SNP that affects the C20:1 content on SSC7 in Laiwu pigs (b), the C20:1 content on SSC7 in Erhualian pigs (c), the C16:1 content on SSC8 in DLY pigs (d), the C14:0 content on SSC12 in Erhualian pigs (e), the C18:0 content on SSC14 in DLY pigs (f) and the C20:0 content on SSC16 in DLY pigs (g), respectively. The top SNP in each plot is indicated in red and the surrounding SNPs in different colors represent different linkage disequilibrium extents (r 2) to the top SNP
Genome-wide significant QTL for fatty acid composition in Erhualian, Laiwu and DLY pig populations
| Chr | Trait | Pop | Nsnp | Range of Nsnp (Mb) | Top SNP | Position (bp) |
| Var (%) | Candidates |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | C16:1 | Laiwu | 1 | 71.01 | ASGA0106005 | 71011913 | 1.97E−07 | 4.95 | |
| 7 | C20:1 | Laiwu | 18 | 27.35–31.80 | H3GA0020505 | 29416373 | 2.25E−08 | 7.91 | |
| 7 | C14:0 | Laiwu | 15 | 29.54–33.59 | ALGA0039950 | 31500144 | 2.60E−08 | 17.78 | |
| 7 | C16:1 | Laiwu | 21 | 29.42–34.06 | DRGA0007448 | 31628039 | 1.27E−08 | 8.03 | |
| 7 | C20:2n6 | Laiwu | 6 | 29.42–34.06 | DRGA0007448 | 31628039 | 5.61E−07 | 6.55 | |
| 7 | C20:1 | Laiwu | 9 | 133.96–134.54 | ASGA0037322 | 133962789 | 3.54E−17 | 35.18 |
|
| 7 | C20:1 | Erhualian | 6 | 134.15–134.54 | ALGA0114746 | 134540651 | 1.51E−17 | 26.43 | |
| 8 | C16:1 | DLY | 7 | 119.73–121.47 | H3GA0025321 | 119887525 | 1.54E−13 | 8.31 |
|
| 8 | C16:0 | Laiwu | 20 | 118.82–123.41 | ALGA0049254 | 120996107 | 2.66E−07 | 8.89 | |
| 8 | C16:1 | Erhualian | 11 | 125.08–129.51 | ALGA0049349 | 127072110 | 6.18E−09 | 9.77 | |
| 9 | C20:1 | DLY | 4 | 6.29–7.58 | ALGA0105252 | 6304559 | 4.27E−07 | 3.99 | |
| 9 | C14:0 | DLY | 4 | 13.26–14.31 | ALGA0107040 | 13826057 | 2.15E−08 | 3.33 |
|
| 9 | C14:0 | DLY | 4 | 13.26–14.31 | MARC0100725 | 14217867 | 3.23E−07 | 4.00 | |
| 12 | C14:0 | Laiwu | 6 | 0.25–2.52 | ASGA0099260 | 248014 | 4.06E−10 | 9.01 | |
| 12 | C14:0 | Erhualian | 2 | 0.46–4.12 | MARC0063090 | 1779278 | 6.05E−12 | 26.81 |
|
| 12 | C16:0 | Erhualian | 3 | 0.46–4.12 | MARC0063090 | 1779278 | 9.24E−09 | 19.56 | |
| 12 | C16:1 | Erhualian | 4 | 0.46–4.12 | MARC0063090 | 1779278 | 2.01E −10 | 13.07 | |
| 12 | C18:1n9c | Erhualian | 4 | 0.46–4.12 | MARC0063090 | 1779278 | 1.14E−06 | 17.44 | |
| 12 | C20:1 | Erhualian | 5 | 0.46–4.12 | MARC0063090 | 1779278 | 1.03E−07 | 10.97 | |
| 14 | C16:0 | DLY | 11 | 120.39–121.95 | ALGA0081087 | 120972588 | 4.00E−08 | 6.25 |
|
| 14 | C20:0 | DLY | 4 | 120.97–121.50 | CASI0010164 | 121305916 | 1.04E−07 | 3.51 | |
| 14 | C18:0 | DLY | 45 | 119.03–123.48 | MARC0063250 | 121500518 | 2.82E−25 | 26.35 | |
| 14 | C16:1 | DLY | 35 | 120.51–123.29 | ASGA0066120 | 121515129 | 1.47E−13 | 11.13 | |
| 16 | C20:0 | Erhualian | 20 | 32.43–36.85 | ASGA0072949 | 34715842 | 6.97E−13 | 12.07 | |
| 16 | C20:0 | DLY | 37 | 41.14–45.83 | DRGA0016155 | 43534471 | 4.32E−31 | 31.79 |
|
| 16 | C20:0 | Laiwu | 4 | 43.53–45.31 | DRGA0016169 | 45313348 | 7.41E−14 | 25.50 |
P-values were calculated using the GenABEL package in R
Phenotypic variation explained by the top SNPs was estimated by (Vreduce−Vfull)/Vresuce, where Vreduce and Vfull are the residual variances of models with and without including SNP genotypes as predictor variables, respectively
Chr chromosome, Pop population, N number of significant SNPs, Position genomic position on the Sscrofa 10.2 pig genome assembly, Var (%) percentage of phenotypic variance explained by each locus
Fig. 3Comparison of the proportions of phenotypic variance explained by both suggestive and genome-wide significant SNPs with those explained by whole-genome SNPs. a Erhualian pigs. b Laiwu pigs. c Duroc × (Landrace × Yorksire) hybrid pigs