| Literature DB >> 28758122 |
Xueqin Liu1, Pu Zhang1, Gongying Zhang1, Sichen Li1, Long Zhang1, Zhongxian Xu1, Tianyuan Ma1, Diyan Li1.
Abstract
To obtain a full understanding of the genetic diversity of the cytochrome oxidase III gene (COX-III) and its association with high altitude adaptation in Tibetan chickens, we sequenced COX-III in 12 chicken populations (155 Tibetan chickens and 145 other domestic chickens). We identified a total of 11 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and 12 haplotypes (Ha1-Ha12). Low genetic diversity (haplotype diversity = 0.531 ± 0.087, nucleotide diversity = 0.00125) was detected for COX-III, and haplotype diversity of Tibetan chicken populations (0.750 ± 0.018) was markedly higher than lowland chicken populations (0.570 ± 0.028). Obvious genetic differentiation (nucleotide divergence = 0.092~0.339) and conspicuous gene communication (gene flow = 0.33~32.22) among 12 populations suggested that Tianfu black-bone fowl (white feather) was possibly introduced from Tibetan chicken. SNP m.10587 T>C affects the specific functions of the COX enzyme. Haplotype Ha3 was found in Tibetan chickens, and SNP m.10115G>A caused an amino acid substitution (Val62Ile) associated with phospholipid binding, while mutations m.10017C>A and m.10555G>A and the previously reported SNP m.10065T>C reduced the hydropathy index to some extent. Together, this indicates that the mitochondrial membrane is more hydrophobic in Tibetan chickens.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28758122 PMCID: PMC5512117 DOI: 10.1155/2017/8064613
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Information of the sample used in this study.
| Type | Breeds | Population | Altitude | Sample ( | Haplotype distributions (number of birds) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lowland chicken | Muchuan black-bone | Muchuan | 400 m | 26 | Ha1 (22) H2 (1) Ha6 (2) Ha11 (1) |
| Emei black fowl | Emei | 500 m | 18 | Ha1 (4) Ha5 (10) Ha6 (4) | |
| Jiuyuan black fowl | Jiuyuan | 800 m | 43 | Ha1 (9) Ha5 (33) Ha9 (1) | |
| Tianfu black-bone fowl (black feather) | Black-Tianfu | 800 m | 44 | Ha1 (38) Ha5 (2) Ha6 (3) Ha12 (1) | |
| Tianfu black-bone fowl (white feather) | White-Tianfu | 800 m | 14 | Ha1 (8) Ha2 (1) Ha5 (5) | |
|
| |||||
| Highland chicken | Tibetan fowl | Haiyan | 3100 m | 49 | Ha1 (20) Ha2 (10) Ha5 (12) Ha6 (5) Ha8 (1) Ha10 (1) |
| Tibetan fowl | Doilungdêqên | 3658 m | 33 | Ha1 (9) Ha2 (13) Ha4 (1) Ha5 (7) Ha6 (2) Ha7 (1) | |
| Tibetan fowl | Ganzi | 3390 m | 10 | Ha1 (2) Ha3 (6) Ha5 (1) Ha6 (1) | |
| Tibetan fowl | Nyingchi | 3100 m | 11 | Ha1 (1) Ha2 (6) Ha6 (4) | |
| Tibetan fowl | Diqing | 3280 m | 15 | Ha1 (6) Ha3 (9) | |
| Tibetan fowl | Shannan | 3700 m | 29 | Ha1 (7) Ha2 (21) Ha5 (1) | |
| Tibetan fowl | Shigatse | 3836 m | 8 | Ha1 (4) Ha2 (4) | |
Nucleotide polymorphism of COX-III gene sequence within 12 populations.
| Populations | Number of variable sites | Number of parsimony-informative sites | Number of haplotypes | Haplotype diversity | Nucleotide diversity | Average number of nucleotide differences ( | Tajima's | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lowland chicken | Muchuan | 5 | 3 | 4 | 0.286 ± 0.112 | 0.00092 | 0.720 | −1.27664 |
| Emei | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0.627 ± 0.086 | 0.00209 | 1.621 | 1.18115 | |
| Jiuyuan | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0.375 ± 0.076 | 0.00099 | 0.777 | 0.25955 | |
| Black-Tianfu | 5 | 4 | 4 | 0.255 ± 0.086 | 0.00079 | 0.559 | −1.27905 | |
| White-Tianfu | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0.582 ± 0.092 | 0.00130 | 1.022 | 1.69598 | |
| All lowland chickens | 7 | 4 | 8 | 0.570 ± 0.028 | 0.00155 | 1.216 | −0.07994 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Highland chicken | Haiyan | 7 | 4 | 6 | 0.727 ± 0.034 | 0.00199 | 1.293 | 0.37142 |
| Doilungdêqên | 5 | 4 | 6 | 0.742 ± 0.043 | 0.00147 | 1.152 | −0.17397 | |
| Ganzi | 5 | 2 | 4 | 0.644 ± 0.152 | 0.00190 | 1.489 | −0.63193 | |
| Nyingchi | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0.618 ± 0.104 | 0.00153 | 1.200 | 0.58729 | |
| Diqing | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.514 ± 0.069 | 0.00066 | 0.514 | 1.37595 | |
| Shannan | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0.431 ± 0.087 | 0.00057 | 0.448 | −0.24788 | |
| Shigatse | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.571 ± 0.094 | 0.00073 | 0.571 | 1.44416 | |
| All highland chickens | 8 | 5 | 9 | 0.750 ± 0.018 | 0.0016 | 1.250 | −0.27902 | |
Nucleotide divergence (Dxy) and net genetic distance (Da) among 12 populations.
| Muchuan | Emei | Jiuyuan | Black-Tianfu | White-Tianfu | Haiyan | Doilungdêqên | Ganzi | Nyingchi | Diqing | Shannan | Shigatse | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muchuan | 0.258 | 0.235 |
| 0.144 | 0.174 | 0.181 | 0.198 | 0.232 | 0.14 | 0.134 | 0.104 | |
| Emei | 0.092 | 0.184 | 0.258 | 0.214 | 0.226 | 0.211 | 0.338 | 0.239 |
| 0.193 | 0.214 | |
| Jiuyuan | 0.128 | 0.013 | 0.233 | 0.162 | 0.195 | 0.181 | 0.314 | 0.257 | 0.308 | 0.162 | 0.184 | |
| Black-Tianfu |
| 0.099 | 0.135 | 0.139 | 0.171 | 0.18 | 0.191 | 0.235 | 0.131 | 0.162 | 0.101 | |
| White-Tianfu | 0.020 | 0.025 | 0.034 | 0.023 | 0.169 | 0.166 | 0.234 | 0.234 | 0.198 | 0.129 | 0.122 | |
| Haiyan | 0.028 | 0.016 | 0.044 | 0.033 | 0.001 | 0.177 | 0.263 | 0.215 | 0.237 | 0.138 | 0.141 | |
| Doilungdêqên | 0.047 | 0.014 | 0.043 | 0.055 | 0.011 |
| 0.268 | 0.190 | 0.25 | 0.118 | 0.132 | |
| Ganzi | 0.04 | 0.116 | 0.152 | 0.042 | 0.055 | 0.062 | 0.080 | 0.318 | 0.14 | 0.226 | 0.2 | |
| Nyingchi | 0.095 | 0.038 | 0.116 | 0.107 | 0.076 | 0.035 | 0.022 | 0.126 | 0.319 | 0.15 | 0.175 | |
| Diqing | 0.052 | 0.187 |
| 0.051 | 0.088 | 0.105 | 0.131 | 0.003 | 0.197 | 0.199 | 0.157 | |
| Shannan | 0.051 | 0.045 | 0.074 | 0.074 | 0.024 | 0.011 | 0.004 | 0.088 | 0.032 | 0.13 |
| |
| Shigatse | 0.012 | 0.058 | 0.088 | 0.017 | 0.009 | 0.005 | 0.009 | 0.053 | 0.049 | 0.079 | 0.004 |
Note. Lower diagonal was nucleotide divergence Da; upper diagonal was net genetic distance Dxy; all the values were enlarged 100 times.
Coefficient of differentiation (Gst) and gene flow (Nm) between populations.
| Muchuan | Emei | Jiuyuan | Black-Tianfu | White-Tianfu | Haiyan | Doilungdêqên | Ganzi | Nyingchi | Diqing | Shannan | Shigatse | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Muchuan | 0.65 | 0.37 |
| 2.63 | 2.46 | 1.17 | 0.66 | 0.54 | 0.76 | 0.44 | 1.75 | |
| Emei | 0.28 | 9.23 | 0.66 | 4.39 | 5.88 | 3.05 | 1.4 | 1.19 | 0.85 | 0.67 | 1.2 | |
| Jiuyuan | 0.40 | 0.03 | 0.33 | 2.14 | 1.66 | 1.23 | 0.9 | 0.66 | 0.56 | 0.4 | 0.86 | |
| Black-Tianfu |
| 0.27 | 0.43 | 2.89 | 1.88 | 0.93 | 0.71 | 0.54 | 0.76 | 0.38 | 1.64 | |
| White-Tianfu | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 0.08 |
|
| 1.31 | 0.98 | 1.23 | 0.93 | 2.94 | |
| Haiyan | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.13 | 0.12 |
| 32.22 | 2.81 | 3.63 | 2.13 | 2.04 | 7.7 | |
| Doilungdêqên | 0.18 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.21 |
| 0.01 | 2.07 | 6.55 | 1.46 | 5.45 | 13.33 | |
| Ganzi | 0.28 | 0.15 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 1.01 | 16.95 | 0.76 | 1.06 | |
| Nyingchi | 0.32 | 0.17 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.20 | 0.72 | 4.57 | 3.46 | |
| Diqing | 0.25 | 0.23 | 0.31 | 0.25 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 0.26 | 0.59 | 1.12 | |
| Shannan | 0.36 | 0.27 | 0.39 | 0.40 | 0.21 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 0.25 | 0.52 | 0.30 | 10.16 | |
| Shigatse | 0.13 | 0.17 | 0.23 | 0.13 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.19 | 0.07 | 0.18 | 0.02 |
Note. Lower diagonal was nucleotide divergence Gst, upper diagonal was net genetic distance Nm; P < 0.05 meant significant difference between lowland chicken and Tibetan chicken breed.
Analysis of molecular variance of COX-III sequences in 12 populations.
| Source of variation | Sum of squares | df | Variance components | Percentage | Fixation index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Among populations | 56.807 | 11 | 0.19 (Va) | 29.57 | 0.2957 |
| Within populations | 132.731 | 288 | 0.46 (Vb) | 70.43 |
Note. Fixation index: 0.2957; P < 0.01.
Distribution of SNPs in COX-III gene in Tibetan chickens and lowland chickens.
| SNP sites | Allele distribution |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allele | TCa | LCb | ||
| 10017 | C | 154 (99.4%) | 145 (100%) | 0.33263 |
| A | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 10081 | A | 90 (58.1%) | 62 (42.8%) | 0.00805 |
| G | 65 (41.9%) | 83 (57.2%) | ||
| 10112 | G | 155 (100%) | 144 (99.3%) | 0.30037 |
| A | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.7%) | ||
| 10115 | G | 140 (90.3%) | 145 (100%) | 0.00012 |
| A | 15 (9.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 10162 | G | 155 (100%) | 144 (99.3%) | 0.30037 |
| A | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.7%) | ||
| 10270 | G | 14 (9%) | 136 (93.8%) | 9.62 × 10−49 |
| A | 141 (91.0%) | 9 (6.2%) | ||
| 10336 | A | 155 (100%) | 144 (99.3%) | 0.30037 |
| G | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.7%) | ||
| 10369 | G | 154 (99.4%) | 145 (100%) | 0.33263 |
| A | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 10555 | G | 154 (99.4%) | 145 (100%) | 0.33263 |
| A | 1 (0.6%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| 10587 | T | 21 (13.5%) | 94 (64.8%) | 6.92 × 10−20 |
| C | 134 (86.5%) | 51 (35.2%) | ||
| 10809 | C | 143 (92.3%) | 136 (93.8%) | 0.60255 |
| T | 12 (7.7%) | 9 (6.2%) | ||
Note: relative content in parentheses meant the number of birds in corresponding allele in the specific polymorphic site; P < 0.05 meant significant difference between lowland chicken and Tibetan chicken breeds; aTC was the abbreviations for Tibetan chicken; bLC was the abbreviations for lowland chicken.
Variable sites of COX-III haplotype sequences of chickens.
| Haplotype reference sequence | Position of variable sites in | Number of birds in highland chickens (%) | Number of birds in lowland chickens (%) | Number of birds | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10017 | 10081 | 10112 | 10115 | 10162 | 10270 | 10336 | 10369 | 10555 | 10587 | 10809 | ||||
| C | A | G | G | G | G | A | G | G | T | C | ||||
| Ha1 |
| G |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 49 (31.6%) | 81 (55.9%) | 130 |
| Ha2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 54 (34.8%) | 2 (1.4%) | 56 |
| Ha3 |
| G |
| A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 (9.7%) | — | 15 |
| Ha4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 (0.6%) | — | 1 |
| Ha5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 21 (13.5%) | 50 (34.5%) | 71 |
| Ha6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 (7.7%) | 9 (6.2%) | 21 |
| Ha7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 (0.6%) | — | 1 |
| Ha8 |
| G |
|
|
|
|
|
| A | C |
| 1 (0.6%) | — | 1 |
| Ha9 |
| G |
|
|
|
| G |
|
|
|
| — | 1 (0.7%) | 1 |
| Ha10 | A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 (0.6%) | — | 1 |
| Ha11 |
|
| A |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| — | 1 (0.7%) | 1 |
| Ha12 |
| G |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| — | 1 (0.7%) | 1 |
| AA Subst |
|
|
|
| ||||||||||
Note. Black dot (·) indicates the same base as the reference, Ha1–Ha12 are haplotypes, and dashes (—) represented the absence of certain haplotype in the population amino acid substitutions (AA Subt.) that were listed below the nucleotide information and marked in italic; position of variable sites in the COX-III gene of chickens was obtained using the complete mitochondrial genome sequence of RJF as the reference sequence.
Figure 1Median joining network of COX-III gene haplotypes. Geographic of samples as showed by different colors. Note: population of different regions is replaced by different colors.
Figure 2Constructing a phylogenetic tree using the Bayesian method. Note: phylogenetic tree of chicken based on haplotype sequence variation of COX-III gene; numbers at the nodes are bootstrap values.
Patterns of haplotype distribution in COX-III gene.
| Haplotype | Number of Tibetan chickens | Number of lowland chickens |
| OR | 95% CIs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ha1 | 49 | 81 | 0.00035 | 0.484 | 0.32515–0.72169 |
| Ha2 | 54 | 2 | 1.911 × 10−14 | 30.375 | 7.332–125.837 |
| Ha3 | 15 | 0 | 0.00006 | — | — |
| Ha4 | 1 | 0 | 1.000 | — | — |
| Ha5 | 21 | 50 | 0.00008 | 0.349 | 0.20373–0.59712 |
| Ha6 | 12 | 9 | 0.66178 | 1.257 | 0.52175–3.030 |
| Ha7 | 1 | 0 | 1.000 | — | — |
| Ha8 | 1 | 0 | 1.000 | — | — |
| Ha9 | 0 | 1 | 0.483 | — | — |
| Ha10 | 1 | 0 | 1.000 | — | — |
| Ha11 | 0 | 1 | 0.483 | — | — |
| Ha12 | 0 | 1 | 0.483 | — | — |
|
| |||||
| Total | 155 | 145 | |||
Note: OR: odds ratio. OR < 1 mean haplotype may be negatively associated with high-altitude adaptation; OR = 1 mean haplotype is not associated with high-altitude adaptation; OR > 1, haplotype may be surely associated with high-altitude adaptation. CIs: confidence intervals; P < 0.05 meant significant difference between lowland chicken and Tibetan chicken breeds.
Figure 3Diagram of transmembrane structure of COX-III protein predicted using the Protter program. The transmembrane structure of the coding sequence was the structure in Cochin-Chinese red jungle fowl. The transmembrane structure of the coding sequence was predicted by nonsynchronous mutations (m.10017C>A m.10112 G>A m.10115G>A m.10555G>A) in the present study.
Figure 4Negative values indicated interaction with water (hydrophilic), and positive values indicated getting out of water (hydrophobic). The red was the hydrophobic index of coding sequence with mutation m.10017G>A; the blue meant the hydrophobic index of coding sequence with mutation m.10115C>A; the orange was the hydrophobic index of coding sequence with mutations m.10555G>A; the irregular curve in gray was the hydrophobic index of coding sequence in the RJF.