| Literature DB >> 27506765 |
Zhenqiang Xu1,2, Congliang Ji2, Yan Zhang2, Zhe Zhang1, Qinghua Nie1, Jiguo Xu1, Dexiang Zhang1,2, Xiquan Zhang3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Residual feed intake (RFI) is a powerful indicator for energy utilization efficiency and responds to selection. Low RFI selection enables a reduction in feed intake without affecting growth performance. However, the effective variants or major genes dedicated to phenotypic differences in RFI in quality chickens are unclear. Therefore, a genome-wide association study (GWAS) and RNA sequencing were performed on RFI to identify genetic variants and potential candidate genes associated with energy improvement.Entities:
Keywords: Genome-wide association study; Quality chickens; RNA-sequencing; Residual feed intake
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27506765 PMCID: PMC4979145 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-016-2861-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Fig. 1Distributional R2 for regression of body weight against the day of the test for each chicken. The vertical ordinate denotes the R2 for the growth rate
Growth characteristics (average ± S.E.) of 10 % of the chickens with the lowest and highest residual feed intake rankings
| Traitsa | Lowest 10 % | Highest 10 % |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| RFI during 44–83-d old (g) | −17.40 (±0.45) | 20.16 (±0.56) | / |
| ADFI (g) | 87.32 (±0.90) | 126.10 (±1.18) | <0.01 |
| Body weight at 44-d old (g) | 771.60 (±9.31) | 770.62 (±10.78) | 0.94 |
| Body weight at 83-d old (g) | 1832.92 (±16.07) | 1858.03(±16.07) | 0.35 |
| ADG (g) | 27.8 (±0.31) | 27.98 (±0.46) | 0.75 |
| MBW (g) | 1318.3 (±11.69) | 1335.0 (±15.12) | 0.38 |
| FCR during 44–83-d old | 3.31 (±0.03) | 4.76 (±0.09) | <0.01 |
a RFI residual feed intake, ADFI average daily feed intake, ADG average daily gain, MBW mid-test body weight, FCR feed conversion rate
b P-value obtained by t-test
Genetic parameter estimation for the growth and feeding traits
| Traitsc | No.d | Heritability (±S.E.) | RFI during44-83-d old (g) |
|---|---|---|---|
| RFI during44-83-d old (g) | 1158 | 0.3542 ± 0.0701 | / |
| ADFI (g) | 1158 | 0.3950 ± 0.0749 | 0.7266a/0.7544 ± 0.0718b |
| Body weight at 44-d old (g) | 1158 | 0.5598 ± 0.0848 | −0.0293/−0.2059 ± 0.1462 |
| Body weight at 83-d old (g) | 1158 | 0.3683 ± 0.0765 | 0.0247/0.0314 ± 0.1649 |
| ADG (g) | 1158 | 0.3186 ± 0.0723 | 0.0286/0.2725 ± 0.1626 |
| MMBW (g0.75) | 1158 | 0.4706 ± 0.0821 | 0.0126/−0.0233 ± 0.1563 |
| FCR during 44–83-d old | 1158 | 0.2159 ± 0.0594 | 0.6558/0.7465 ± 0.0902 |
aPearson correlation
bGenetic correlation (average ± S.E.)
RFI residual feed intake, ADFI average daily feed intake, ADG average daily gain, MBW mid-test body weight, FCR feed conversion rate
d Number of samples for estimating heritability
Fig. 2Probability graph of residual feed intake
Fig. 3Manhattan plot of the SNP additive effects on residual feed intake (RFI) in chickens. The green line was the genome-wide significance threshold (10−4)
SNPs significantly associated with RFI
| Locus | Chr | Positiona | Effectb |
| MAFd | Var(%)e | Nearest gene | SNP-gene relation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| rs313001261 | 1 | 47140273 | 0.35 | 4.08E-05 | 0.36 | 9.52 | SLC17A8 | UTR-3 |
| rs14820118 | 1 | 47142175 | 0.34 | 8.75E-05 | 0.35 | 8.53 | SLC17A8 | downstream |
| rs313802356 | 2 | 81015541 | −0.44 | 6.90E-05 | 0.16 | 2.24 | COBL | UTR-3 |
| rs316977875 | 2 | 81047713 | −0.44 | 6.37E-05 | 0.16 | 2.24 | COBL | intron |
| rs312370583 | 2 | 81093795 | −0.44 | 7.73E-05 | 0.16 | 2.42 | COBL | intron |
| rs312326618 | 4 | 5197844 | −0.3 | 7.60E-05 | 0.44 | 4.8 | PCDH19 | intron |
| rs316570003 | 4 | 78962129 | 0.38 | 8.13E-05 | 0.22 | 9.71 | JAKMIP1 | intron |
| rs14494646 | 4 | 79000778 | 0.44 | 9.74E-05 | 0.13 | 6.93 | JAKMIP1 | upstream |
| rs312925954 | 4 | 82293366 | 0.45 | 1.76E-05 | 0.16 | 4.52 | ZFYVE28 | intron |
| rs16445177 | 4 | 82306738 | 0.4 | 5.39E-05 | 0.18 | 4.29 | ZFYVE28 | intron |
| rs312767762 | 9 | 4440306 | −0.53 | 7.90E-05 | 0.1 | 8.43 | PPP1R7 | intron |
| rs16663153 | 9 | 4507514 | −0.51 | 6.10E-05 | 0.11 | 8.13 | SEPT2 | downstream |
| rs14046165 | 12 | 16386012 | 0.33 | 4.20E-05** | 0.38 | 4.15 | RYBP | intron |
| rs312899555 | 12 | 16393667 | 0.33 | 5.37E-05** | 0.31 | 2.63 | RYBP | intron |
| rs313947867 | 12 | 16400923 | 0.33 | 4.28E-05** | 0.31 | 2.63 | RYBP | intron |
| rs317049993 | 12 | 16423468 | 0.32 | 3.39E-05** | 0.4 | 4.38 | RYBP | upstream |
| rs315004580 | 12 | 16640380 | 0.32 | 3.00E-05* | 0.47 | 5.54 | PDZRN3 | intron |
| rs315162282 | 12 | 16648446 | 0.32 | 3.27E-05* | 0.47 | 5.54 | PDZRN3 | intron |
| rs317287197 | 12 | 16660649 | 0.32 | 2.66E-05* | 0.47 | 5.54 | PDZRN3 | intron |
| rs316098097 | 12 | 16673403 | 0.32 | 3.86E-05** | 0.47 | 5.54 | PDZRN3 | intron |
| rs314131263 | 12 | 16681057 | 0.32 | 3.45E-05** | 0.47 | 5.62 | PDZRN3 | intron |
| rs14046530 | 12 | 16758193 | −0.32 | 6.89E-05** | 0.49 | 4.54 | PDZRN3 | upstream |
| rs315238546 | 12 | 17083942 | 0.3 | 5.60E-05** | 0.41 | 5.94 | LOC101749255 | downstream |
| rs315693318 | 12 | 17089689 | 0.3 | 8.62E-05** | 0.41 | 5.94 | LOC101749255 | downstream |
| rs315157887 | 12 | 17160768 | 0.37 | 3.92E-06** | 0.38 | 7.41 | LOC101749255 | upstream |
| rs317584843 | 12 | 17195875 | 0.32 | 6.31E-05** | 0.3 | 5.22 | CHL1 | upstream |
| rs314285248 | 12 | 17230860 | 0.33 | 6.92E-06** | 0.46 | 5.08 | CHL1 | intron |
| rs317278144 | 12 | 17239654 | 0.35 | 3.34E-05* | 0.25 | 7.47 | CHL1 | intron |
| rs317188563 | 12 | 17260556 | 0.28 | 8.02E-05** | 0.5 | 1.88 | CHL1 | intron |
| rs316897066 | 18 | 3599249 | 0.28 | 7.54E-05 | 0.44 | 5.18 | UTS2R | downstream |
| rs315285389 | 23 | 1733290 | −0.38 | 2.27E-05* | 0.24 | 3.39 | ZMPSTE24 | upstream |
| rs315491506 | 26 | 3777283 | −0.38 | 2.65E-05 | 0.21 | 9.28 | SYT6 | intron |
aPhysical position
bAdditive effect of allele B (minor allele)
c P-value corrected for inflation factor λ, *FDR ≤10 %, ** FDR ≤5 %
dMinor allele frequency
eThe proportion of the phenotypic variance accounted by the SNP
Fig. 4Ensembl genes on the region from 16.3 to 17.3 Mb on chicken chromosome 12 and haplotype blocks constructed using significant RFI-related SNPs
Fig. 5Relationship between the physical distance and LD values between SNP markers in the quality chickens used in the present study
Statistics for read mapping
| Sample name | L2 | H1 | H2 | L1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total readsa | 25,313,336 | 25,731,202 | 20,249,350 | 28,438,634 |
| Total mappedb | 22,702,806 (89.69 %) | 23,216,653 (90.23 %) | 17,916,485 (88.48 %) | 25,601,368 (90.02 %) |
| Multiple mappedc | 681,109 (2.69 %) | 690,852 (2.368 %) | 575,647 (2.84) | 695,892 (2.45 %) |
| Uniquely mappedd | 22,021,697 (87.00 %) | 22,525,801 (87.54 %) | 17,340,838 (85.64 %) | 24,905,476 (87.58 %) |
| Reads map to “+”e | 11,365,825 | 11,622,304 | 8,966,742 | 12,813,376 |
| Reads map to “−”f | 11,336,981 | 11,594,349 | 8,949,743 | 12,787,992 |
aTotal reads: the number of clean reads
bTotal mapped: the number of clean reads that could be mapped to the chicken genome
cMultiple mapped: the number of clean reads corresponding to a plurality of locations in the genome
dUniquely mapped: the number of clean reads corresponding to a unique location in the genome
eReads map to “+”: reads mapped to the sense strand
fReads map to “−”: reads mapped to the antisense strand
Predictable changes in biological functioning based on DEG analysis in low-RFI individuals
| Categories | Functions annotation |
| Predicted | Molecules |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cell Death and Survival | apoptosis of lung cancer cell lines | 5.80E-06 | ↓ | CAMP, EREG, G0S2, HSPA5, MCL1, RASD1, SERPINF1, TNFSF10 |
| apoptosis of tumor cell lines | 2.08E-05 | ↓ | AR, BCL2A1, CAMP, CAV1, COL18A1, CREM, CTSD, EREG, G0S2, HSPA5, IL18, MAOA, MCL1, NFKBIA, NR0B2, PLAU, RASD1, SERPINF1, TNFSF10, UCHL1 | |
| cell death of lung cancer cell lines | 3.21E-06 | ↓ | CAMP, EREG, G0S2, HSPA5, MCL1, NFKBIA, RASD1, SERPINF1, TNFSF10 | |
| cell death of tumor cell lines | 2.75E-05 | ↓ | AR, BCL2A1, BTG1, CAMP, CAV1, COL18A1, CREM, CTSD, EREG, FETUB, G0S2, HSPA5, IL18, MAOA, MCL1, NFKBIA, NR0B2, PLAU, PPAT, RASD1, SERP | |
| cellular degradation | 3.77E-04 | ↓ | AR, CACNA1D, CAV1, CREM, CTSD, LYZ, UCHL1 | |
| Cellular Assembly and Organization | formation of filaments | 1.36E-03 | ↑ | AR, CAV1, COL18A1, HSPA5, PTGDS, SERPINF1, TTR, TUBB |
| Organismal Development | development of body axis | 1.99E-04 | ↑ | ANGPTL3, CCKAR, COL18A1, CREM, CTSD, DIO3, GPR34, HHEX, HSP90B1, INSIG1, LUM, MAOA, NFKBIA, PLAU, SERPINF1 |
| Immune Cell Trafficking | activation of antigen presenting cells | 3.47E-04 | ↓ | CAMP, GJB1, HNF4A, HSP90B1, IL18, LECT2, SERPINF1, TNFSF10 |
| Renal and Urological System Development | cell viability of kidney cell lines | 3.05E-04 | ↓ | CAV1, HSP90B1, HYOU1, NFKBIA |
| Cardiovascular Disease | vascular lesion | 2.94E-07 | ↑ | ACAT2, CACNA1D, COL18A1, IL18, LPL, MGP, mir-221, NFKBIA, PLAU, TNFSF10 |
Fig. 6Predictable changes in fat metabolism based on DEG analysis in low-RFI individuals