| Literature DB >> 27349343 |
J J Stainton1, B Charlesworth2, C S Haley1,3, A Kranis1,4, K Watson4, P Wiener1.
Abstract
The development of broiler chickens over the last 70 years has been accompanied by large phenotypic changes, so that the resulting genomic signatures of selection should be detectable by current statistical techniques with sufficiently dense genetic markers. Using two approaches, this study analysed high-density SNP data from a broiler chicken line to detect low-diversity genomic regions characteristic of past selection. Seven regions with zero diversity were identified across the genome. Most of these were very small and did not contain many genes. In addition, fifteen regions were identified with diversity increasing asymptotically from a low level. These regions were larger and thus generally included more genes. Several candidate genes for broiler traits were found within these 'regression regions', including IGF1, GPD2 and MTNR1AI. The results suggest that the identification of zero-diversity regions is too restrictive for characterizing regions under selection, but that regions showing patterns of diversity along the chromosome that are consistent with selective sweeps contain a number of genes that are functional candidates for involvement in broiler development. Many regions identified in this study overlap or are close to regions identified in layer chicken populations, possibly due to their shared precommercialization history or to shared selection pressures between broilers and layers.Entities:
Keywords: Axiom chicken genotyping array; hitchhiking; poultry; regression method; selection mapping
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27349343 PMCID: PMC5363361 DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12228
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anim Breed Genet ISSN: 0931-2668 Impact factor: 2.380
Figure 1Distribution of diversity in 200 Kbp‐sized windows across the genome of broiler line 3, assessed using a ∼600 K SNP chip.
Zero‐diversity regions spread over more than one unique window present in the 600 K data set in line 3, showing numbers of SNPs, QTLs and genes
| Region no | Chr | Start (Mb) | End (Mb) | Size (Mb) | Start (cM) | End (cM) | Size (cM) | SNPs | QTLs | Broiler QTLs | Genes | Zero‐diversity regions | Total regions | Proportion of zero diversity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZD.1 | 1 | 65.972 | 66.00 | 0.028 | 130.54 | 130.68 | 0.14 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 31 207 | 0.0032 |
| ZD.2 | 1 | 77.584 | 77.608 | 0.024 | 154.75 | 154.78 | 0.03 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 19 | 870 | 2.18 |
| ZD.3 | 1 | 139.28 | 139.328 | 0.048 | 276.04 | 276.05 | 0.01 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 9 | 329 | 2.74 |
| ZD.4 | 2 | 52.782 | 52.808 | 0.026 | 124.72 | 124.72 | 0.00 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 18 | 693 | 2.60 |
| ZD.5 | 2 | 135.362 | 135.386 | 0.024 | 267.83 | 267.87 | 0.04 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 1440 | 0.35 |
| ZD.6 | 4 | 85.26 | 85.298 | 0.038 | 175.90 | 176.02 | 0.12 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 22 | 352 | 6.25 |
| ZD.7 | 5 | 48.906 | 48.936 | 0.03 | 108.76 | 108.79 | 0.03 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2747 | 0.04 |
The location includes estimates for both Mb and cM. The final three columns are the number of zero‐diversity regions of this size and SNP count, the total number of regions of this size and SNP count, and the proportion of regions of this size and SNP count with zero diversity.
Figure 2Diversity across putatively selected regions, with significant asymptotic regressions. (a) Diversity values in region Reg.2 on chromosome 1 (diversity values less than 0.005 between 54.5 and 56 Mb). (b) Diversity values in region Reg.6 on chromosome 4 (diversity <0.005 between 58 and 62 Mb). (c) Diversity values in region Reg.7 on chromosome 5 (diversity <0.005 between 48 and 49 Mb).
Regions displaying diversities less than 0.005 and that are located within 1 Mb of a region identified by the regression approach (top 1% of −log(p) values), over one or more bracket sizes (1 Mb, 5 Mb and 10 Mb)
| Region no | Chr | Start (Mb) | End (Mb) | Size (Mb) | Start (cM) | End (cM) | Size (cM) | Bracket size (Mb) | QTL | Broiler QTL | Genes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reg.1 | 1 | 4.526 | 4.806 | 0.280 | 7.58 | 7.80 | 0.22 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Reg.2 | 1 | 54.554 | 55.670 | 1.116 | 102.55 | 105.29 | 2.75 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 22 |
| Reg.3 | 1 | 182.492 | 182.872 | 0.380 | 347.10 | 347.31 | 0.21 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Reg.4 | 1 | 184.152 | 184.174 | 0.022 | 348.13 | 348.19 | 0.06 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Reg.5 | 2 | 26.906 | 27.314 | 0.408 | 70.54 | 70.66 | 0.12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Reg.6 | 4 | 58.526 | 62.148 | 3.622 | 127.14 | 132.53 | 5.40 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 40 |
| Reg.7 | 5 | 48.250 | 49.418 | 1.168 | 108.04 | 109.76 | 1.73 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 15 |
| Reg.8 | 5 | 50.926 | 50.954 | 0.028 | 115.44 | 115.50 | 0.05 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Reg.9 | 5 | 55.928 | 56.136 | 0.208 | 141.63 | 142.65 | 1.02 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Reg.10 | 7 | 35.378 | 36.214 | 0.836 | 101.97 | 103.00 | 1.03 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 17 |
| Reg.11 | 11 | 1.464 | 4.022 | 2.558 | 3.36 | 6.98 | 3.62 | 5, 10 | 4 | 2 | 70 |
| Reg.12 | 15 | 3.236 | 3.568 | 0.332 | 3.63 | 4.05 | 0.41 | 1, 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Reg.13 | 20 | 5.424 | 5.662 | 0.238 | 21.00 | 22.48 | 1.48 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 18 |
| Reg.14 | 25 | 0.906 | 1.762 | 0.856 | 36.25 | 56.22 | 19.97 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 84 |
| Reg.15 | 28 | 3.778 | 4.716 | 0.938 | 52.01 | 54.00 | 1.99 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 42 |
Regions identified in previous studies that are located within 1 Mb of the zero‐diversity or regression regions identified in this study
| Region no | Chr | Start (Mb) | End (Mb) | Size (Mb) | Previous studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reg.1 | 1 | 4.526 | 4.806 | 0.28 | B (CH), G |
| Reg.2 | 1 | 54.554 | 55.670 | 1.116 |
|
| Reg.3 | 1 | 182.492 | 182.872 | 0.38 |
|
| Reg.4 | 1 | 184.152 | 184.174 | 0.022 | B (CH), F |
| Reg.5 | 2 | 26.906 | 27.314 | 0.408 | A ( |
| Reg.6 | 4 | 58.526 | 62.148 | 3.622 | A (AD,LR), |
| Reg.7 | 5 | 48.250 | 49.418 | 1.168 | A (AD), B (DU), |
| Reg.8 | 5 | 50.926 | 50.954 | 0.028 | |
| Reg.9 | 5 | 55.928 | 56.136 | 0.208 | D (fat line), |
| Reg.10 | 7 | 35.378 | 36.214 | 0.836 |
|
| Reg.11 | 11 | 1.464 | 4.022 | 2.558 |
|
| Reg.12 | 15 | 3.236 | 3.568 | 0.332 | A (LR), C, F, G |
| Reg.13 | 20 | 5.424 | 5.662 | 0.238 | A (CB), B (BR,BRD), F, G |
| Reg.14 | 25 | 0.906 | 1.762 | 0.856 | B ( |
| Reg.15 | 28 | 3.778 | 4.716 | 0.938 |
|
| ZD.1 | 1 | 65.972 | 66.00 | 0.028 | A (LR), D (fat), F |
| ZD.2 | 1 | 77.584 | 77.608 | 0.024 | B (CH) |
| ZD.3 | 1 | 139.28 | 139.328 | 0.048 | B (CH) |
| ZD.4 | 2 | 52.782 | 52.808 | 0.026 | A ( |
| ZD.5 | 2 | 135.362 | 135.386 | 0.024 | E |
| ZD.6 | 4 | 85.26 | 85.298 | 0.038 | G |
| ZD.7 | 5 | 48.906 | 48.936 | 0.03 | B (DU), F |
For studies A–E (see listing below), positions were transformed using liftOver (https://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgLiftOver) from galGal4 to the previous chicken genome assembly (galGal3) for comparison; for studies F and G (see listing below), galGal4 positions were compared directly. Regarding the liftOver procedure, the Start and End positions were separately converted to the previous assembly. In a few cases, either the Start or End position could not be identified in which case it was estimated based on the size of the region in the new assembly (in cases where both Start and End positions were successfully converted, region sizes were very similar between the two assemblies).
Previous studies (table numbers below refer to the original publications):
(A) Study of commercial broilers and layers and non‐commercial chickens (Rubin et al. 2010). Includes regions showing ZHP < −4 (Table S3). AD = all domestic; CB = commercial broilers; LR = layers (including both white and brown egg).
(B) Study of commercial broilers and layers and non‐commercial chickens (Elferink et al. 2012). Includes regions showing ZHP < −4 (Table S12). DM = domesticated; CM = commercial; NCM = non‐commercial; BR = broiler; LR = layer; DU = Dutch; CH = Chinese; BRS = broiler sire; BRD = broiler dam; WL = white layer; BL = brown layer; DCF = Dutch country fowls; DPB = Dutch polish & bearded; DNB = Dutch new breeds.
(C) Study of two lines of broilers divergently selected for abdominal fat content (Zhang et al. 2012a). Includes regions identified showing extreme low heterozygosity or differences in allele frequency between ‘fat’ and ‘lean’ lines (Table 3). fat = line selected for increased abdominal fat levels; lean = line selected for decreased abdominal fat.
(D) Study of two lines of broilers divergently selected for abdominal fat content (Zhang et al. 2012b). Includes regions showing evidence of selection based on the REHH test (Table 3). fat = line selected for increased abdominal fat levels; lean = line selected for decreased abdominal fat.
(E) Study of a brown commercial layer line (Qanbari et al. 2012). Includes regions showing extreme low heterozygosity (Table S1).
(F) Study of commercial layers and non‐commercial breeds (Gholami et al. 2014). Includes regions in upper 1% FST distribution in comparison of brown layers and white layers (Table S4).
(G) Study of commercial broiler lines (Stainton et al. 2015). Includes regions showing statistically significant between‐line differentiation (Table 3).