| Literature DB >> 30877744 |
Pius L Mwambene1,2, Martina Kyallo2, Eunice Machuka2, Dedan Githae2, Roger Pelle2.
Abstract
Unraveling the genetic diversity of livestock species is central to understanding their value and importance for conservation and improvement in diverse production environments. In developing countries, information on genetic attributes of many livestock species is unfortunately scanty to support well-informed decision-making upon relevant management strategies. This study aimed at investigating allelic variability, genetic diversity, and genetic relationships of 10 indigenous chicken ecotypes from Southern Highlands of Tanzania using the Major Histocompatibility Complex-linked LEI0258 marker. A total of 400 DNA samples, 40 per ecotype, were genotyped by capillary electrophoresis. Thirty different alleles with sizes ranging from 197 to 569 bp were determined. The number of alleles ranged from 17 (Itunduma) to 21 (Mbeya), with an average of 19.20 alleles per ecotype. Allelic polymorphism was further evaluated through genotyping by Sanger sequencing. Thirty-three DNA samples with different fragment sizes were re-amplified and their alleles sequenced to depict polymorphism based on a combination of two repeat regions at 12 and 13 bp, respectively, and flanking regions with SNP and indels. The repeat region at 13 bp appeared 1 to 28 times, whereas the region at 12 bp appeared 3 to 19 times in all sequenced fragments. The numbers of indels and SNP determined were 7 and 9, respectively. From capillary electrophoresis, the Chunya and Msimbazi ecotypes exhibited the highest genetic diversity (0.937), whereas the lowest value (0.910) was observed from the Mbarali ecotype, with an average of 0.925. The Namtumbo and Wanging'ombe ecotypes showed high inbreeding coefficients (FIS > 0.05), whereas a high excess heterozygote value (FIS = -0.098) was observed from the Njombe ecotype. Two percent of the genetic diversity was due to differences among ecotypes, and the rest was due to differences among individuals within the ecotypes. Despite the overall low genetic differentiation, both fragment and sequencing analyses depicted a high allelic and genetic variability across 10 chicken ecotypes. These results therefore, underscore the importance of establishing appropriate conservation and management strategies to capitalize on observed variability and maintain genetic flexibility across diverse production environments.Entities:
Keywords: LEI0258 marker; Southern Highlands of Tanzania; characterization; genetic diversity; indigenous chicken ecotype
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30877744 PMCID: PMC6591683 DOI: 10.3382/ps/pez076
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Poult Sci ISSN: 0032-5791 Impact factor: 3.352
Figure 1.A map of Tanzania showing selected areas for blood samples collection
Key: shows districts with different agro-ecological zones where blood samples were collected.
Some phenotypic attributes of selected indigenous chicken ecotypes from Southern Highlands of Tanzania.
|
|
Frequencies of LEI0258 alleles in 10 Tanzanian chicken ecotypes.
| Ecotypes | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Allele | CH | IL | IT | MBR | MB | MSB | NJ | NM | SG | WG | Overall freq | Pop |
|
| 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.025 | 0.038 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.063 | 0.050 | 0.013 | 0.0213 | 7 |
|
| 0.113 | 0.063 | 0.050 | 0.025 | 0.100 | 0.038 | 0.188 | 0.063 | 0.125 | 0.038 | 0.0800 | 10 |
|
| 0.025 | 0.213 | 0.163 | 0.025 | 0.063 | 0.138 | 0.125 | 0.038 | 0.063 | 0.213 | 0.106 | 10 |
|
| 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.038 | 3 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.063 | 0.025 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.0113 | 4 |
|
| 0.050 | 0.000 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.013 | 0.038 | 0.050 | 0.100 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.0313 | 8 |
|
| 0.050 | 0.038 | 0.063 | 0.163 | 0.075 | 0.038 | 0.013 | 0.038 | 0.000 | 0.063 | 0.0538 | 9 |
|
| 0.038 | 0.075 | 0.050 | 0.000 | 0.075 | 0.100 | 0.038 | 0.000 | 0.075 | 0.100 | 0.0550 | 8 |
|
| 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.038 | 0.113 | 0.100 | 0.025 | 0.0363 | 9 |
|
| 0.050 | 0.038 | 0.075 | 0.025 | 0.163 | 0.075 | 0.113 | 0.038 | 0.138 | 0.025 | 0.0738 | 10 |
|
| 0.050 | 0.013 | 0.025 | 0.075 | 0.025 | 0.038 | 0.013 | 0.100 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.0388 | 10 |
|
| 0.050 | 0.063 | 0.150 | 0.113 | 0.100 | 0.050 | 0.075 | 0.163 | 0.100 | 0.125 | 0.0988 | 10 |
|
| 0.038 | 0.088 | 0.025 | 0.000 | 0.038 | 0.013 | 0.063 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.025 | 0.0300 | 8 |
|
| 0.088 | 0.075 | 0.075 | 0.138 | 0.025 | 0.113 | 0.063 | 0.075 | 0.063 | 0.100 | 0.0813 | 10 |
|
| 0.025 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.025 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.0075 | 4 |
|
| 0.063 | 0.113 | 0.038 | 0.013 | 0.038 | 0.025 | 0.038 | 0.038 | 0.038 | 0.038 | 0.0438 | 10 |
|
| 0.100 | 0.075 | 0.113 | 0.113 | 0.038 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.050 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.0563 | 10 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.025 | 0.000 | 0.025 | 0.038 | 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.0113 | 5 |
|
| 0.063 | 0.025 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.025 | 0.075 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.038 | 0.063 | 0.0338 | 8 |
|
| 0.013 | 0.013 | 0.063 | 0.025 | 0.025 | 0.050 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.0200 | 7 |
|
| 0.013 | 0.025 | 0.050 | 0.000 | 0.050 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.025 | 0.075 | 0.000 | 0.0238 | 6 |
|
| 0.138 | 0.038 | 0.013 | 0.138 | 0.063 | 0.075 | 0.038 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.038 | 0.0550 | 9 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.0013 | 1 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.025 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.025 | 0.0075 | 4 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.0013 | 1 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.0013 | 1 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.0025 | 2 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.0038 | 3 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.025 | 0.038 | 0.0088 | 4 |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.0013 | 1 |
|
| 19 | 18 | 17 | 19 | 21 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 19 | 19 | 19.20 | |
Notes: CH = Chunya; IL = Ileje; IT = Itunduma; MBR = Mbarali; MB = Mbeya; MSB = Msimbazi; NJ = Njombe; NM = Namtumbo; SG = Songea; WG = Wanging’ombe; freq = frequency; and Pop = number of populations sharing the allele.
Number of alleles, observed and expected heterozygosity, effective number of alleles, and Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) status.
| Sub-pop (N = 40) | TNA | Allele range | Ae | Ho | He | FIS values | HWE deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chunya | 19 | 209 to 426 | 13.34 | 0.900 | 0.937 | 0.027 | bns |
| Ileje | 18 | 197 to 426 | 10.32 | 0.900 | 0.915 | 0.003 | bns |
| Itunduma | 17 | 209 to 569 | 10.88 | 0.950 | 0.920 | –0.046 | b*** |
| Mbarali | 19 | 197 to 497 | 9.91 | 0.900 | 0.910 | –0.001 | bns |
| Mbeya | 21 | 197 to 485 | 13.01 | 0.900 | 0.935 | 0.025 | b*** |
| Msimbazi | 20 | 209 to 440 | 13.33 | 0.950 | 0.937 | –0.027 | bns |
| Njombe | 20 | 197 to 450 | 11.23 | 1.000 | 0.922 | –0.098 | b** |
| Namtumbo | 20 | 197 to 497 | 12.08 | 0.825 | 0.929 | 0.101 | b** |
| Songea | 19 | 197 to 497 | 12.26 | 0.875 | 0.930 | 0.047 | b* |
| Wanging’ombe | 19 | 197 to 497 | 10.16 | 0.775 | 0.913 | 0.140 | b*** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes: N = number of samples per ecotype; TNA = total number of alleles; Ho = observed heterozygosity; He = expected heterozygosity; Ae = effective number of alleles; I = information index; FIS = within-population inbreeding coefficient; b*, **, *** = populations not in HWE (P < 0.05; P < 0.01; P < 0.001); bns = populations with non-significant deviation from HWE.
Polymorphisms identified by LEI0258 alleles in 10 selected indigenous chicken ecotypes.
| Position | Position | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| –30 to 29 | −28 | –11 | Repeat motifs | 5 | (23 to 30) | 33 | 39 | 46 | GenBank accession references | ||||||
| Chicken samples | Fragment size (bp, by genotyping) | Consensus size (bp, by sequencing) | TT | G | G | R13 | R12 | C | ATTTTGAG/Δ | Δ | A | T/A | % Identity | Reference number | Corresponding isolate, clone or haplotype |
| Chunya 26 | 312 | 305 | – | – | – | 9 | 3 | – |
| A | – | A | 100 |
| NYCAU-10 |
| Songea 21b | 300 | 295 |
| A | – | 1 | 11 | – | – | A | – | A | 99 |
| ShubiGemo_1H |
| Songea 12 | 300 | 295 |
| A |
| 1 | 11 |
|
| A |
| A | 99 |
| Cos116a |
| Chunya 1a | 426 | 419 | – | – | – | 14 | 6 | – |
| A | – | A | 100 |
| NYCAU-50 |
| Mbarali 18 | 327 | 321 | – | – | – | 1 | 13 | – |
| A | – | A | 99 |
| Dikuli_7H |
| Namtumbo 37 | 351 | 345 | – | – | – | 1 | 15 | – | – | A | – | A | 99 |
| Hugub_H9 |
| Songea 21a | 327 | 321 | – | – | – | 1 | 13 |
|
| A |
| A | 99 |
| Dikuli_7H |
| Wanging’ombe 2 | 300 | 295 |
| A | – | 1 | 11 | – |
| A | – | A | 100 |
| ShubGemo_1H |
| Wanging’ombe 15a | 263 | 261 | – | – | – | 1 | 8 | – |
| A | – | A | 100 |
| Cen3a |
| Wanging’ombe 30 | 277 | 261 | – | – | – | 1 | 8 | – |
| A | – | A | 100 |
| Cen3a |
| Wanging’ombe 37 | 363 | 357 | – | – | – | 1 | 16 | – |
| A | – | A | 99 |
| Adane_9C |
| Wanging’ombe 39 | 289 | 273 | – | – | – | 1 | 9 | – |
| A | – | A | 100 |
| NYCAU-31 |
| Itunduma 18 | 325 | 309 | – | – | – | 1 | 12 | – |
| A | – | A | 100 |
| Wes97b |
| Chunya 13 | 385 | 379 |
| A | – | 1 | 18 | – |
| A | – | A | 100 |
| Kumato_5H |
| Ileje 13 | 363 | 357 | – | – | – | 1 | 16 | A |
| A | – | A | 99 |
| Adane_9C |
| Mbarali 6 | 426 | 419 | – | – | – | 15 | 6 | – |
| A | – | A | 100 |
| NYCAU-50 |
| Chunya 1b | 426 | 419 | – | – | – | 15 | 6 | – | – | A | – | A | 100 |
| NYCAU-50 |
| Mbeya 7 | 363 | 357 | – | – | – | 1 | 16 | A |
| A | – | A | 99 |
| Adane_9C |
| Itunduma 9 | 315 | 309 | – | – | – | 1 | 12 | – | – | A | – | A | 100 |
| Wes97b |
| Mbarali 10 | 363 | 357 | – | – | – | 1 | 16 |
| A | – | A | 99 |
| Adane_9C | |
| Wanging’ombe 20 | 327 | 321 | – | – | – | 1 | 13 | – | – | A | – | A | 100 |
| Dikuli_7H |
| Mbeya 38 | 277 | 273 | – | – | – | 1 | 9 | – | – | A | – | A | 100 |
| NYCAU-31 |
| Wanging’ombe 15b | 263 | 261 | – | – | – | 1 | 8 | – | – | A | – | A | 100 |
| Cen3a |
| Itunduma 22–A1 | 5691 | 552 | – | – | – | 28 | 3 | – |
| A | – | A | 99 |
| Cen173a |
| Itunduma 22–A2 | 397 | 391 |
| A | – | 1 | 19 | – |
| A | A | 98 |
| haplotype B1 | |
| Itunduma 22–B1 | 397 | 391 |
| A | – | 1 | 19 | – |
| A | – | A | 98 |
| haplotype B1 |
| Namtumbo 32–B2 | 385 | 381 | – | – | – | 1 | 18 | – |
| A | – | A | 100 |
| Cos8b |
| Msimbazi 18–B1 | 253 | 249 | – | – | – | 1 | 7 | – | – | A | – | A | 100 |
| Wes35b |
| Itunduma 6–B1 | 325 | 319 | – | – | – | 1 | 13 | – | – | A | A | 100 |
| NYCAU-43 | |
| Itunduma 40–B1 | 300 | 295 |
| A | 1 | 11 | – | – | A | – | A | 100 |
| ShubiGemo_1H | |
| Wanging’ombe 1A1 | 363 | 357 | – | – | – | 1 | 16 | – |
| A | – | A | 99 |
| Adane_9C |
| Wanging’ombe 39–B2 | 327 | 321 | – | – | – | 1 | 13 | – |
| A | – | A | 99 |
| Dikuli_7H |
| Namtumbo 39–B1 | 289 | 273 | – | – | – | 1 | 9 | – |
| A | – | A | 100 |
| NYCAU-31 |
Note: 1Private allele: the allele appeared only in one population.
Δ: defines deletion compared with the reference sequence.
–: consistent with the reference sequence.
Chicken DNA samples with sequences provided with accession numbers from NCBI.
| S/No | Chicken sample identity | New accession numbers |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chunya_26 |
|
| 2 | Songea_21 |
|
| 3 | Songea_12 |
|
| 4 | Chunya_1a |
|
| 5 | Mbarali_18 |
|
| 6 | Namtumbo_37 |
|
| 7 | Songea_21a |
|
| 8 | Wanging’ombe_2 |
|
| 9 | Wanging’ombe_15a |
|
| 10 | Wanging’ombe_30 |
|
| 11 | Wanging’ombe_37 |
|
| 12 | Wanging’ombe_39 |
|
| 13 | Itunduma_18 |
|
| 14 | Chunya_13 |
|
| 15 | Ileje_13 |
|
| 16 | Mbarali_6 |
|
| 17 | Chunya_1b |
|
| 18 | Mbeya_7 |
|
| 19 | Itunduma_9 |
|
| 20 | Mbarali_10 |
|
| 21 | Wanging’ombe_20 |
|
| 22 | Mbeya_38 |
|
| 23 | Wanging’ombe_15 |
|
| 24 | Itunduma_22_A1 |
|
| 25 | Itunduma_22_A2 |
|
| 26 | Itunduma_22_B1 |
|
| 27 | Namtumbo_32_B2 |
|
| 28 | Msimbazi_18_B1 |
|
| 29 | Itunduma_6_B1 |
|
| 30 | Itunduma_40_B1 |
|
| 31 | Wanging’ombe_1_A1 |
|
| 32 | Wanging’ombe_39_B2 |
|
| 33 | Namtumbo_39_B1 |
|
Figure 2.Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA).
Pairwise Nei unbiased genetic distances (DA below diagonal) and fixation indices (FST above diagonal) between chicken ecotypes.
| Ecotypes | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Chunya | – | 0.0202 | 0.0201 | 0.009ns | 0.008ns | 0.0112 | 0.0131 | 0.0182 | 0.0172 | 0.0252 |
| 2. Ileje | 0.285 | – | 0.004ns | 0.0412 | 0.0182 | 0.0091 | 0.0141 | 0.0332 | 0.0232 | 0.001ns |
| 3. Itunduma | 0.301 | 0.045 | – | 0.0232 | 0.008ns | 0.010ns | 0.0161 | 0.0182 | 0.0172 | 0.004ns |
| 4. Mbarali | 0.104 | 0.591 | 0.288 | – | 0.0262 | 0.0262 |
| 0.0232 | 0.0432 | 0.0332 |
| 5. Mbeya | 0.141 | 0.250 | 0.108 | 0.381 | – | 0.0111 | 0.005ns | 0.0192 |
| 0.0192 |
| 6. Msimbazi | 0.184 | 0.111 | 0.132 | 0.369 | 0.172 | – | 0.0121 | 0.0272 | 0.0171 | 0.001ns |
| 7. Njombe | 0.187 | 0.162 | 0.206 |
| 0.054 | 0.152 | – | 0.0222 | 0.005ns | 0.0182 |
| 8. Namtumbo | 0.314 | 0.536 | 0.266 | 0.323 | 0.332 | 0.491 | 0.335 | – | 0.0111 | 0.0252 |
| 9. Songea | 0.289 | 0.326 | 0.241 | 0.703 |
| 0.273 | 0.057 | 0.178 | – | 0.0212 |
| 10. W/ng’ombe | 0.392 | 0.003 | 0.048 | 0.445 | 0.270 | 0.015 | 0.227 | 0.379 | 0.305 | – |
Note: 1FST values significantly different from zero (P ≤ 0.05).
2FST values significantly different from zero (P ≤ 0.01).
W/ng’ombe—Wanging’ombe.
Figure 3.Principal components graph of the first 2 principal components from 10 chicken populations.