| Literature DB >> 27815797 |
Mónica B Betancor1, Aurelio Ortega2, Fernando de la Gándara2, Douglas R Tocher3, Gabriel Mourente4.
Abstract
The present study is the first to evaluate lipid metabolism in first-feeding Atlantic bluefin tuna (ABT; Thunnus thynnus L.) larvae fed different live prey including enriched rotifers Brachionus plicatilis and Acartia sp. copepod nauplii from 2 days after hatch. Understanding the molecular basis of lipid metabolism and regulation in ABT will provide insights to optimize diet formulations for this high-value species new to aquaculture. To this end, we investigated the effect of dietary lipid on whole larvae lipid class and fatty acid compositions and the expression of key genes involved in lipid metabolism in first feeding ABT larvae fed different live prey. Additionally, the expression of lipid metabolism genes in tissues of adult broodstock ABT was evaluated. Growth and survival data indicated that copepods were the best live prey for first feeding ABT and that differences in growth performance and lipid metabolism observed between larvae from different year classes could be a consequence of broodstock nutrition. In addition, expression patterns of lipid metabolic genes observed in ABT larvae in the trials could reflect differences in lipid class and fatty acid compositions of the live prey. The lipid nutritional requirements, including essential fatty acid requirements of larval ABT during the early feeding stages, are unknown, and the present study represents a first step in addressing these highly relevant issues. However, further studies are required to determine nutritional requirements and understand lipid metabolism during development of ABT larvae and to apply the knowledge to the commercial culture of this iconic species.Entities:
Keywords: Bluefin tuna; Copepods; Fatty acid composition; Gene expression; Larvae; Lipid classes; Lipid content; Rotifer; cDNA
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27815797 PMCID: PMC5374188 DOI: 10.1007/s10695-016-0305-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Fish Physiol Biochem ISSN: 0920-1742 Impact factor: 2.794
Rearing performance of 14-day after hatch Atlantic Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) larvae fed enriched rotifers Brachionus plicatilis, Acartia sp. copepod nauplii, and co-feeding rotifer + copepod in 2013 and 2014 feeding trials
| Trial | 2013 | 2014 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABT + rotifer | ABT + copepod | ABT + rotifer | ABT + copepod | ABT + rotifer + copepod | ||
| Total length (mm) | 7.75 ± 0.61 | 7.26 ± 0.51* | 7.02 ± 0.17c | 8.29 ± 0.08a | 7.50 ± 0.22b | |
| Dry mass (mg) | 0.66 ± 0.13 | 0.61 ± 0.13 | 0.35 ± 0.03c | 0.77 ± 0.01a | 0.51 ± 0.06b | |
| Survival (%) | 3.18 ± 1.12 | 5.91 ± 0.93* | 2.88 ± 1.02c | 7.49 ± 1.17b | 10.24 ± 3.50a |
Results are means ± SD (n = 20 for total length and dry mass and n = 3 for survival). Different superscript letters denote significant difference (P < 0.05) for one-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparison tests in 2014 trial
ABT Atlantic bluefin tuna
*Significant difference (p < 0.05) for t tests analysis in 2013 trial
Trial in 2013—total lipid (% dry mass for prey and % live mass for ABT larvae) and lipid class composition (% of total lipid) of (a) rotifer Brachionus plicatilis enriched with Skretting® ORI-Green, (b) nauplii of the copedod Acartia granii fed Isocrysis T-Iso, and 14-day after hatch Atlantic bluefin tuna (ABT) larvae fed rotifers (c) and copepods (d)
| (a) Rotifer | (b) Copepod | (c) ABT + rotifer | (d) ABT + copepod | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total lipid (% dry mass) | 13.4 ± 0.9 | 6.5 ± 0.3* | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.2 |
| Lipid class | ||||
| Phosphatidylcholine | 14.7 ± 0.5 | 14.2 ± 1.5 | 25.0 ± 0.8 | 22.2 ± 1.4 |
| Phosphatidylethanolamine | 13.3 ± 0.5 | 6.8 ± 1.4* | 11.4 ± 0.6 | 11.0 ± 0.3 |
| Phosphatidylserine | 4.9 ± 0.2 | 1.6 ± 0.9* | 7.3 ± 0.9 | 9.5 ± 0.7* |
| Phosphatidylinositol | 7.7 ± 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.1* | 3.7 ± 1.1 | 4.6 ± 0.6 |
| Phosphatidic acid/cardiolipin | nd | 3.5 ± 0.8 | 3.1 ± 0.1 | 2.0 ± 0.2* |
| Sphingomyelin | 0.5 ± 0.0 | 5.2 ± 0.1* | 2.3 ± 0.4 | 2.8 ± 0.3 |
| Lyso-phosphatidylcholine | 2.4 ± 0.1 | 3.5 ± 0.2* | 1.8 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.1 |
| Total polar lipids | 55.9 ± 1.5 | 50.5 ± 4.9 | 66.4 ± 2.0 | 63.2 ± 1.7 |
| Cholesterol | 4.1 ± 0.6 | 14.2 ± 0.7* | 10.6 ± 0.3 | 14.9 ± 0.9* |
| Triacylglycerol | 25.5 ± 0.9 | 25.5 ± 3.9 | 13.8 ± 0.9 | 11.6 ± 1.8 |
| Steryl/wax ester | 5.4 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1* | 3.1 ± 0.9 | 5.0 ± 0.5 |
| Free fatty acid | 8.9 ± 0.3 | 8.4 ± 0.4 | 5.9 ± 0.1 | 5.0 ± 1.3 |
| Total neutral lipids | 44.1 ± 1.5 | 49.5 ± 4.9 | 33.6 ± 2.0 | 36.8 ± 1.7 |
| Triacylglycerol:cholesterol | 6.2 ± 0.7 | 1.8 ± 0.2 * | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.2 |
Results are means ± SD (n = 3)
*Significant difference (P < 0.05) for t test analysis
Trial in 2014—total lipid (% dry mass for prey and % live mass for ABT larvae) and lipid class composition (% of total lipid) of rotifer Brachionus plicatilis enriched with Skretting® ORI-Green (a), nauplii of the copedod Acartia tonsa fed on Rhodomonas salina and Isochrysis T-Iso (b), and 14-day after hatch Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) larvae fed rotifers (c), copepod (d), and rotifer + copepod (e)
| (a) Rotifer | (b) Copepod | (c) ABT + rotifer | (d) ABT + copepod | (e) ABT + rotifer + copepod | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TL (% dry mass) | 15.9 ± 1.6 | 9.0 ± 0.6* | 1.2 ± 0.0 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.3 |
| Lipid class | |||||
| Phosphatidylcholine | 12.0 ± 0.5 | 16.2 ± 0.5* | 22.2 ± 0.7 | 20.4 ± 0.2 | 21.6 ± 1.0 |
| Phosphatidylethanolamine | 13.2 ± 0.5 | 7.7 ± 0.3* | 14.2 ± 1.5 | 13.9 ± 0.5 | 13.5 ± 1.0 |
| Phosphatidylserine | 4.9 ± 0.8 | 6.2 ± 0.5 | 8.6 ± 0.4a | 7.5 ± 0.6ab | 6.7 ± 0.6b |
| Phosphatidylinositol | 8.8 ± 0.6 | 5.1 ± 0.3* | 5.7 ± 0.3a | 4.4 ± 0.2b | 4.0 ± 0.4b |
| Phosphatidic acid/cardiolipin | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 3.9 ± 0.1* | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 1.7 ± 0.2 |
| Sphingomyelin | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 5.6 ± 0.4* | 2.6 ± 0.2 | 2.1 ± 0.2 | 2.0 ± 0.2 |
| Lyso-phosphatidylcholine | 1.8 ± 0.3 | 2.4 ± 0.2 | 0.6 ± 0.1a | 0.6 ± 0.1a | 0.9 ± 0.1b |
| Total polar Lipids | 52.8 ± 1.7 | 55.8 ± 0.3 | 67.3 ± 1.1a | 62.6 ± 0.2b | 62.8 ± 1.9ab |
| Cholesterol | 11.2 ± 1.2 | 10.9 ± 0.3 | 10.0 ± 0.6 | 11.0 ± 0.4 | 11.0 ± 0.3 |
| Triacylglycerol | 23.6 ± 2.1 | 20.6 ± 0.5 | 13.6 ± 0.7a | 15.0 ± 0.4ab | 17.6 ± 2.8b |
| Steryl/wax ester | 5.6 ± 0.3 | 1.7 ± 0.1* | 3.6 ± 0.2a | 6.1 ± 0.6b | 3.2 ± 0.8a |
| Free fatty acid | 6.7 ± 1.1 | 10.9 ± 0.4* | 5.5 ± 0.2 | 5.2 ± 0.2 | 5.1 ± 0.8 |
| Total neutral Lipids | 47.4 ± 1.7 | 44.2 ± 0.3 | 32.7 ± 1.1a | 37.4 ± 0.2b | 37.2 ± 1.9b |
| TAG/C | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 1.9 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 1.6 ± 0.3 |
Results are mean ± SD (n = 3). A different superscript letter denotes significantly different (p < 0.05) for one-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparison tests in 2014 trial
TAG/C triacylglycerol/colesterol ratio. ABT Atlantic bluefin tuna
*indicates significantly different (p < 0.05) for t-tests analysis among the live preys
Total lipid fatty acid composition (weight %) of rotifers B. plicatilis enriched with Skretting® ORI-Green (a), nauplii of the copepod Acartia granii fed on Rhodomonas salina (b), and 14-day after hatch Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus L.) larvae fed with rotifers (c) and copepods (d) in the 2013 trial
| Live preys | ABT larvae | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) | (b) | (c) | (d) | |
| Fatty acid | ||||
| 14:0 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 8.9 ± 0.4* | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 1.8 ± 0.3* |
| 16:0 | 19.6 ± 0.2 | 14.9 ± 0.7* | 18.4 ± 0.4 | 19.2 ± 0.8 |
| 18:0 | 3.4 ± 0.1 | 2.9 ± 0.1* | 9.3 ± 0.4 | 9.5 ± 1.4 |
| Total saturateda | 25.0 ± 0.2 | 27.2 ± 0.6* | 30.1 ± 0.3 | 31.9 ± 1.3 |
| 16:1n-7 | 0.8 ± 0.0 | 5.1 ± 0.1* | 1.2 ± 0.3 | 2.5 ± 0.1* |
| 18:1n-9 | 4.5 ± 0.1 | 5.2 ± 0.1* | 6.3 ± 0.9 | 6.0 ± 0.2 |
| 18:1n-7 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 1.6 ± 0.2 | 2.2 ± 0.1 |
| 20:1n-9 | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.1* | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 0.4 ± 0.1* |
| Total monoenesb | 12.7 ± 0.2 | 13.3 ± 0.5 | 14.6 ± 0.9 | 12.7 ± 0.3 |
| C16 PUFA | 6.5 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.1* | 2.6 ± 0.1 | 1.9 ± 0.2* |
| 18:2n-6 | 20.5 ± 0.3 | 8.7 ± 0.2* | 13.1 ± 0.5 | 4.5 ± 0.3* |
| 20:4n-6 | 0.6 ± 0.0 | 1.2 ± 0.0* | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.1 |
| 22:5n-6 | 0.5 ± 0.0 | 2.5 ± 0.1* | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 2.2 ± 0.2* |
| Total n-6PUFAc | 27.9 ± 0.3 | 14.7 ± 0.1* | 18.1 ± 0.7 | 10.5 ± 0.3* |
| 18:3n-3 | 6.7 ± 0.1 | 3.9 ± 0.0* | 3.0 ± 0.1 | 1.7 ± 0.2* |
| 18:4n-3 | 0.2 ± 0.0 | 3.4 ± 0.1* | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 0.9 ± 0.2* |
| 20:4n-3 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.0* | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.0* |
| 20:5n-3 | 4.5 ± 0.1 | 8.9 ± 0.1* | 5.4 ± 0.1 | 5.9 ± 0.4 |
| 22:5n-3 | 3.9 ± 0.2 | 0.3 ± 0.0* | 4.3 ± 0.4 | 1.0 ± 0.0* |
| 22:6n-3 | 12.1 ± 0.5 | 24.9 ± 0.9* | 17.5 ± 0.9 | 29.6 ± 1.0* |
| Total n-3PUFAd | 32.1 ± 0.7 | 42.3 ± 0.9* | 33.8 ± 0.4 | 41.3 ± 1.7* |
| Total PUFA | 60.0 ± 0.7 | 57.0 ± 3.9* | 51.9 ± 1.3 | 51.8 ± 2.0 |
| n-3/n-6 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 2.9 ± 0.1* | 1.9 ± 0.1 | 3.9 ± 0.1* |
| DHA/EPA | 2.7 ± 0.1 | 2.8 ± 0.1 | 3.2 ± 0.2 | 5.0 ± 0.1* |
Results are means ± SD (n = 3). An SD of 0.0 implies an SD of <0.05
DHA docosahexaenoic acid, EPA eicosapentaenoic acid, PUFA polyunsaturated fatty acid
*Significantly different (P < 0.05)
aTotals include 15:0, 20:0, 22:0, and 24:0
bTotals include 16:1n-9, 18:1n-11, 20:1n-7, 22:1 isomers, and 24:1
cTotals include 18:3n-6, 20:2n-6, 22:4n-6, and 22:5n-6
dTotals include 20:3n-3 and 22:3n-3
Fatty acid composition (weight %) of total lipid of rotifers B. plicatilis enriched with Skretting® ORI-Green (a), nauplii of the copepod Acartia tonsa fed Rhodomonas salina and Isochrysis T-Iso (b), and 14-day after hatch Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus L.) larvae fed with rotifers (c), copepods (d), and co-feed rotifer + copepod (e) in the 2014 trial
| Live prey | ABT larvae | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (a) | (b) | (c) | (d) | (e) | |
| Fatty acid | |||||
| 14:0 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 11.0 ± 0.2* | 0.7 ± 0.1b | 2.2 ± 0.2a | 1.6 ± 0.3a |
| 16:0 | 22.7 ± 0.9 | 11.9 ± 0.2* | 16.9 ± 0.3 | 18.3 ± 0.5 | 17.1 ± 0.4 |
| 18:0 | 2.9 ± 0.1 | 2.1 ± 0.0* | 8.6 ± 0.4 | 7.8 ± 0.1 | 8.3 ± 0.4 |
| Total saturateda | 28.1 ± 1.2 | 26.6 ± 0.6 | 27.9 ± 0.5 | 31.6 ± 0.7 | 29.8 ± 0.3 |
| 16:1n-7 | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 3.9 ± 0.1* | 1.7 ± 0.3ab | 2.3 ± 0.1a | 1.4 ± 0.1b |
| 18:1n-9 | 4.5 ± 0.3 | 4.5 ± 0.2 | 4.9 ± 0.2b | 5.7 ± 0.2a | 5.1 ± 0.2ab |
| 18:1n-7 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.9 ± 0.2 | 2.0 ± 0.1 | 1.7 ± 0.1 |
| 20:1n-9 | 1.9 ± 0.1 | 0.3 ± 0.1* | 1.2 ± 0.1a | 0.3 ± 0.0b | 0.9 ± 0.1a |
| Total monoenesb | 11.6 ± 0.2 | 11.8 ± 0.4 | 12.9 ± 0.3b | 15.7 ± 0.3a | 14.0 ± 0.3ab |
| C16 PUFA | 3.6 ± 0.3 | 1.1 ± 0.1* | 3.0 ± 0.1a | 2.2 ± 0.1b | 2.8 ± 0.1a |
| 18:2n-6 | 14.8 ± 1.1 | 8.0 ± 0.2* | 12.7 ± 0.7a | 4.2 ± 0.1b | 10.3 ± 0.9a |
| 20:4n-6 | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 0.6 ± 0.0 | 2.6 ± 0.3a | 1.6 ± 0.1b | 1.4 ± 0.1b |
| 22:5n-6 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 2.6 ± 0.1* | 0.4 ± 0.1c | 2.6 ± 0.2a | 1.8 ± 0.3b |
| Total n-6PUFAc | 20.4 ± 1.3 | 14.1 ± 0.1* | 19.4 ± 0.6a | 14.6 ± 0.2b | 20.0 ± 1.1a |
| 18:3n-3 | 3.9 ± 0.2 | 5.2 ± 0.3* | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 2.5 ± 0.2 | 2.4 ± 0.1 |
| 18:4n-3 | 0.3 ± 0.1 | 8.2 ± 0.6* | 0.2 ± 0.0c | 2.2 ± 0.2a | 1.0 ± 0.2b |
| 20:4n-3 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.0* | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 0.8 ± 0.2 |
| 20:5n-3 | 4.5 ± 0.1 | 3.8 ± 0.1* | 6.6 ± 0.4a | 5.5 ± 0.1b | 4.8 ± 0.1c |
| 22:5n-3 | 4.9 ± 0.3 | 0.3 ± 0.0* | 4.6 ± 0.2a | 0.6 ± 0.0c | 2.2 ± 0.3b |
| 22:6n-3 | 17.5 ± 3.1 | 26.0 ± 0.9* | 17.6 ± 0.5b | 28.2 ± 0.3a | 24.4 ± 0.5a |
| Total n-3PUFAd | 34.6 ± 3.1 | 44.9 ± 0.3* | 34.5 ± 0.3b | 44.1 ± 0.3a | 40.1 ± 0.3a |
| Total PUFA | 55.1 ± 1.8 | 59.0 ± 0.9 | 53.8 ± 0.6 | 51.1 ± 2.0 | 53.7 ± 1.3 |
| n-3/n-6 | 1.7 ± 0.3 | 3.2 ± 0.1* | 1.7 ± 0.3b | 3.0 ± 0.1a | 2.0 ± 0.2b |
| DHA/EPA | 3.8 ± 0.6 | 6.9 ± 0.6* | 2.7 ± 0.2b | 5.1 ± 0.2a | 5.0 ± 0.2a |
Results are means ± SD (n = 3). An SD of 0.0 implies an SD of <0.05. Values bearing different superscript letters (ABT larvae) are significantly different (P < 0.05)
DHA docosahexaenoic acid, EPA eicosapentaenoic acid, PUFA polyunsaturated fatty acid
*Values within live prey are significantly different (P < 0.05)
aTotals include 15:0, 20:0, 22:0, and 24:0
bTotals include 16:1n-9, 18:1n-11, 20:1n-7, 22:1 isomers, and 24:1
cTotals include 18:3n-6, 20:2n-6, and 22:4n-6
dTotals include 20:3n-3 and 22:3n-3
Fig. 1Nutritional regulation of fads2d6 and elovl5 gene transcription in whole larvae of Atlantic bluefin tuna fed different dietary treatments in the 2013 (a) or 2014 (b) trials. Feeds were either enriched rotifers (R), nauplii of copepods (C), or co-feeding of both live preys (CR). Values are normalized expression ratios, corresponding to an average of six individuals (n = 6) with standard errors (SEM). Different superscript letters denote differences between the dietary treatments. fads2d6 delta-6 fatty acyl desaturase; elovl5 fatty acyl elongase 5
Fig. 2Nutritional regulation of transcription factor genes in whole larvae of Atlantic bluefin tuna fed different dietary treatments in the 2013 trial. Feeds were either enriched rotifers (R) or nauplii of copepods (C). Values are normalized expression ratios, corresponding to an average of six individuals (n = 6) with standard errors (SEM). Different superscript letters denote differences between the dietary treatments. lxr liver X receptor; srebp1 sterol regulatory element-binding protein 1; srebp2 sterol regulatory element-binding protein 2; rxr retinoid X receptor; pparα peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha; pparγ peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma
Fig. 3Nutritional regulation of transcription factor genes in whole larvae of Atlantic bluefin tuna fed different dietary treatments in the 2014 trial. Feeds were either enriched rotifers (R), nauplii of copepods (C), or co-feeding of both live preys (CR). Values are normalized expression ratios, corresponding to an average of six individuals (n = 6) with standard errors (SEM). Different superscript letters denote differences between the dietary treatments. lxr liver X receptor; srebp1 sterol regulatory element-binding protein 1; srebp2 sterol regulatory element-binding protein 2; rxr retinoid X receptor; pparα peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha; pparγ peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma
Fig. 4Nutritional regulation of lipid metabolism gene transcription in whole larvae of Atlantic bluefin tuna fed different dietary treatments in the 2013 trial. Feeds were either enriched rotifers (R) or nauplii of copepods (C). Values are normalized expression ratios, corresponding to an average of six individuals (n = 6) with standard errors (SEM). Different superscript letters denote differences between the dietary treatments. fabp4 fatty acid binding protein 4 (adipocyte); fabp7 fatty acid binding protein 7 (brain-type); fabp2 fatty acid binding protein 2 (intestinal); fas fatty acid synthase; cpt1 carnitine palmitoyl transferase I; aco acyl coA oxidase; lpl lipoprotein lipase; hmgcl 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA lyase
Fig. 5Nutritional regulation of lipid metabolism gene transcription in whole larvae of Atlantic bluefin tuna fed different dietary treatments in the 2014 trial. Feeds were either enriched rotifers (R), nauplii of copepods (C), or co-feeding of both live preys (CR). Values are normalized expression ratios, corresponding to an average of six individuals (n = 6) with standard errors (SEM). Different superscript letters denote differences between the dietary treatments. fabp4 fatty acid binding protein 4 (adipocyte); fabp7 fatty acid binding protein 7 (brain-type); fabp2 fatty acid binding protein 2 (intestinal); fas fatty acid synthase; cpt1 carnitine palmitoyl transferase I; aco acyl coA oxidase; lpl lipoprotein lipase; hmgcl 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA lyase
Fig. 6Tissue distribution of fads2d6 (black) and elovl5 (white) transcripts. The transcript expression level was determined by qPCR in 12 tissues. Values correspond to the log-normalized (ef1α) relative expression (RE) of the target genes in each tissue. For comparison, the expression level of fads2d6 in ovary, which was the lowest, was defined as 1. The results represent the average of six individuals (n = 6) with standard errors (SEM). B brain; G gills; H heart; K kidney; S spleen; L liver; I intestine; R red muscle; W white muscle; A adipose tissue; O ovary; T testis
Fig. 7Tissue distribution of pparα and γ (a), lxr and rxr (b), srebp1 and 2 (c), fabp genes (d), cpt1 and fas (e) and aco, and hmgcl and lpl (f). The transcript expression level was determined by qPCR in 12 tissues. Values correspond to the normalized (ef1α) relative expression (RE) of the target genes in each tissue. For comparison, the expression level of pparα in gills (a), rxr in ovary (b), srebp2 in white muscle (c), fabp2 in ovary (d), cptI in liver (e), and lpl in spleen (f) were lowest and defined as 1. The results represent the average of six individuals (n = 6) with standard errors (SEM). B brain; G gills; H heart; K kidney; S spleen; L liver; I intestine; R red muscle; W white muscle; A adipose tissue; O ovary; T testis. Different letters indicate significant differences among tissues for each of the genes (P < 0.05)