| Literature DB >> 31137587 |
Syed Ali Azmal1,2, Ali Akbar Bhuiyan3,4, Abdullah Ibne Omar5, Shuai Ma6, Chenghao Sun7, Zhongdong Han8, Meikuen Zhang9, Shuhong Zhao10, Shijun Li11.
Abstract
The improvement of egg production is of vital importance in the chicken industry to maintain optimum output throughout the laying period. Because of the elongation of the egg-laying cycle, a drop in egg-laying rates in the late laying period has provoked great concern in the poultry industry. In this study, we calculated the egg-laying rate at weeks 61-69 (60 days) of Jing Hong chickens parent generation as the phenotype, and the genotype were detected by the chicken 600K Affymetrix Axiom High Density (HD) Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP)-array. The Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS) result showed that the egg production trait is significantly associated with five SNPs (AX-75745366, AX-75745380, AX-75745340, AX-75745388, and AX-75745341), which are in the rap guanine nucleotide exchange factor 6 (RAPGEF6) gene on chicken chromosome 13. A total of 1676 Chinese commercial Jing Hong laying hens-including two populations, P1 population (858 hens) and P2 population (818 hens)-were genotyped using the Polymerase Chain Reaction-Restriction Fragments Length Polymorphisms (PCR-RFLP) method for the association analysis of egg-laying rates for the verification of the GWAS results. Genotypic and allelic frequencies of five SNPs were inconsistent with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and the average population genetics parameters considering all the SNP values; i.e., gene homozygosity (Ho), gene heterozygosity (He), the effective number of alleles (Ne), and the polymorphism information content (PIC) were 0.75, 0.25, 1.40, and 0.20 in P1; 0.71, 0.29, 1.46, and 0.24 in P2; and 0.73, 0.27, 1.43, and 0.22 in P1 + P2 populations, respectively. The association analysis results revealed that out of the five polymorphisms, three of them (AX-75745366, AX-75745340, and AX-75745341; Patent applying No: 201810428916.5) had highly significant effects on egg-laying rates according to the GWAS results. Population-specific association analyses also showed similar significant association effects with this trait. Four haplotypes (AAGG, AAAG, AGGG, and AGAG) were inferred based on significant loci (AX-75745340 and AX-75745341) and also showed significant associations with the egg-laying rate, where haplotype AAGG had the highest egg-laying rate, with the exception of the egg-laying rate in P1 population, followed by other haplotypes. Furthermore, genotypes TT, AA, and GG showed the highest egg-laying rate compared to the corresponding genotypes at AX-75745366, AX-75745340, and AX-75745341 SNP loci in P1+P2, respectively. A similar result was found in the population-specific analysis except for the P1 population, in which TC genotype showed the highest egg-laying rate. No significant association was found in the egg-laying rate during the 60 days laying period for the SNPs (AX-75745380 and AX-75745388) in any group of population (p ≥ 0.05). Collectively, we report for the first time that 3 SNPs in the RAPGEF6 gene were significantly associated with the egg-laying rate during the later stage of egg production, which could be used as the potential candidate molecular genetic markers that would be able to facilitate in the selection and improvement of egg production traits through chicken breeding.Entities:
Keywords: GWAS; Jing Hong chicken; RAPGEF6; SNPs; association; egg-laying rate
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31137587 PMCID: PMC6562510 DOI: 10.3390/genes10050384
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genes (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4425 Impact factor: 4.096
Figure 1The Manhattan plot shows the association of single nucleotide polymorphisms with egg production traits. Each dot represents one SNP. The figure illustrated the level of statistical significance (y-axis), as measured by the negative log of the corresponding p value for each single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). Each typed SNPs indicate dots of different colors, which are arranged by chromosomal location (x-axis). Imputation was performed on chromosome 13 using only the data of 120 genomes. The highlighted green line indicates the threshold of 5% Bonferroni genome-wide significance (p = 2.09 × 10−7), and the underlined blue line shows the limit of symbolic genome-wide significance (p = 4.18 × 10−6), respectively.
Figure 2Q-Q (Quantile–Quantile) plots for quality control check and visualizing crude association. (a) Unadjusted model; λ = 1.0142 and (b) Adjusted model for PCs, Age and Sex; λ = 1.0032. The plots illustrate the relationship between observed log10 (p value) in the y-axis and expected log10 (p value) in x-axis test statistics and are used as a tool for visualizing appropriate control of population substructure and the presence of association. The left panel (a) is based on an unadjusted model, where the deviation is below expected, while the right panel (b) is based on an adjusted model for potential cofounders, which brings the tail closer to the y = x line. The observed extreme statistics are suggestive of an association. Data generally falling on the y = x lines suggest no clear systemic bias. Unstandardized λ’s are reported. PCs: principal components.
Figure 3The UPGMA (Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean) evolutionary relationship tree of chicken (Gallus gallus) RAPGEP6 gene with different species.
Genotypic and allelic frequencies with Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) test at the SNP locus of RAPGEF6 gene in the Chinese Jing Hong chicken population.
| SNPs (Location) | Population |
| Genotype Frequency | Allele Frequency | χ2 (HWE) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNP-01 | TT | TC | CC | T | C | ||||
| P1 | 858 | 0.33 (282) | 0.52 (450) | 0.15 (126) | 0.59 (1014) | 0.41 (702) | 6.17 * | 0.0130 | |
| P2 | 818 | 0.32 (265) | 0.54 (438) | 0.14 (115) | 0.59 (968) | 0.41 (668) | 9.57 * | 0.0020 | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 0.33 (547) | 0.53 (888) | 0.14 (241) | 0.59 (1982) | 0.41 (1370) | 15.51 * | 0.0001 | |
| SNP-02 | CC | CT | TT | C | T | ||||
| P1 | 858 | 0.81 (697) | 0.19 (161) | - | 0.91 (1555) | 0.09 (161) | 9.20 * | 0.0024 | |
| P2 | 818 | 0.82 (668) | 0.18 (150) | - | 0.91 (1486) | 0.09 (150) | 8.33 * | 0.0039 | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 0.81 (1365) | 0.19 (311) | - | 0.91 (3041) | 0.09 (311) | 17.53 * | 0.0000 | |
| SNP-03 | AA | AG | GG | A | G | ||||
| P1 | 858 | 0.91 (782) | 0.09 (76) | - | 0.96 (1640) | 0.04 (76) | 1.84 NS | 0.1746 | |
| P2 | 818 | 0.78 (642) | 0.22 (176) | - | 0.89 (1460) | 0.11 (176) | 11.89 * | 0.0006 | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 0.85 (1424) | 0.15 (252) | - | 0.92 (3100) | 0.08 (252) | 11.08 * | 0.0009 | |
| SNP-04 | GG | GA | AA | G | A | ||||
| P1 | 858 | 0.49 (421) | 0.51 (437) | - | 0.75 (1279) | 0.25 (437) | 100.16 * | 0.0000 | |
| P2 | 818 | 0.50 (405) | 0.50 (413) | - | 0.75 (1223) | 0.25 (413) | 93.28 * | 0.0000 | |
| P1+P2 | 1676 | 0.49 (826) | 0.51 (850) | - | 0.75 (2502) | 0.25 (850) | 193.44 * | 0.0000 | |
| SNP-05 | AA | AG | GG | A | G | ||||
| P1 | 858 | - | 0.12 (104) | 0.88 (754) | 0.06 (104) | 0.94 (1612) | 3.57 NS | 0.0588 | |
| P2 | 818 | - | 0.27 (223) | 0.73 (595) | 0.14 (223) | 0.86 (1413) | 20.37 * | 0.0000 | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | - | 0.20 (327) | 0.80 (1349) | 0.10 (327) | 0.90 (3025) | 19.58 * | 0.0000 | |
P1 = First population, P2 = Second population, P1 + P2 = Both first and second population, n = Number of individual, SNP = Single nucleotide polymorphism, RAPGEF6 = Rap Guanine Nucleotide Exchange Factor 6, * p < 0.05 was accepted to be statistically significant when the data were analyzed using a Pearson’s goodness-of-fit chi-square test (degree of freedom = 1), NS = Non-significant at p ≥ 0.5.
Haplotypes inferred based on the three SNPs and frequencies in RAPGEF6 gene of Chinese Jing Hong chicken population.
| Haplotype | Polymorphism Site | Frequency in Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T15836649C | A15829057G | A15829303G | P1 | P2 | (P1 + P2) | |
| H1 | T | A | G | 0.5378 | 0.4762 | 0.5089 |
| H2 | C | A | G | 0.3829 | 0.3467 | 0.3644 |
| H3 | T | A | A | 0.0270 | 0.0377 | 0.0322 |
| H4 | T | G | A | 0.0167 | 0.0480 | 0.0316 |
| H5 | T | G | G | 0.0095 | 0.0298 | 0.0186 |
| H6 | C | G | G | 0.0093 | 0.0109 | 0.0106 |
| H7 | C | G | A | 0.0087 | 0.0189 | 0.0144 |
| H8 | C | A | A | 0.0081 | 0.0318 | 0.0193 |
Haplotype: H1 (TAG), H2 (CAG), H3 (TAA), H4 (TGA), H5 (TGG), H6 (CGG), H7 (CGA), H8 CAA).
Polymorphism information analysis of the SNPs in RAPGEF6 gene in the Chinese local Jing Hong chicken population.
| SNPs (Location) | Population | Number of Chickens ( | Gene Homozygosity (Ho) | Gene Heterozygosity (He) | Effective Allele Number (Ne) | Polymorphism Information Content (PIC) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SNP-01 | P1 | 858 | 0.5165 | 0.4835 | 1.9360 | 0.3666 |
| P2 | 818 | 0.5168 | 0.4832 | 1.9349 | 0.3665 | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 0.5167 | 0.4833 | 1.9355 | 0.3665 | |
| SNP-02 | P1 | 858 | 0.8300 | 0.1700 | 1.2049 | 0.1556 |
| P2 | 818 | 0.8334 | 0.1666 | 1.1998 | 0.1527 | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 0.8317 | 0.1683 | 1.2024 | 0.1542 | |
| SNP-03 | P1 | 858 | 0.9153 | 0.0847 | 1.0925 | 0.0811 |
| P2 | 818 | 0.8080 | 0.1920 | 1.2376 | 0.1736 | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 0.8609 | 0.1391 | 1.1615 | 0.1294 | |
| SNP-04 | P1 | 858 | 0.6204 | 0.3796 | 1.6119 | 0.3076 |
| P2 | 818 | 0.6226 | 0.3774 | 1.6063 | 0.3062 | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 0.6214 | 0.3786 | 1.6092 | 0.3069 | |
| SNP-05 | P1 | 858 | 0.8861 | 0.1139 | 1.1285 | 0.1074 |
| P2 | 818 | 0.7645 | 0.2355 | 1.3080 | 0.2077 | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 0.8239 | 0.1761 | 1.2137 | 0.1606 |
P1 = First population, P2 = Second population, P1 + P2 = Both first and second population.
Association analysis between the genotypes of five polymorphisms in chicken RAPGEF6 gene and egg-laying rates in the Chinese Jing Hong chicken population.
| SNPs (Location) | Population |
| Genotype Frequency (LSM ± SEM) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level of Significance | ||||||||
| SNP-01 | TT | TC | CC | |||||
| P1 | 858 | 78.63 ± 1.08 a (282) | 80.50 ± 0.86 a (450) | 72.61 ± 1.62 b (126) | 9.25 | <0.0001 | *** | |
| P2 | 818 | 85.30 ± 1.02 a (265) | 80.49 ± 0.79 b (438) | 76.40 ± 1.54 c (115) | 13.29 | <0.0001 | *** | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 81.86 ± 0.75 a (547) | 80.49 ± 0.59 a (888) | 74.42 ± 1.13 b (241) | 15.67 | <0.0001 | *** | |
| SNP-02 | CC | CT | TT | |||||
| P1 | 858 | 79.20 ± 0.70 (697) | 76.67 ± 1.45 (161) | - | 2.49 | 0.1151 | NS | |
| P2 | 818 | 81.18 ± 0.65 (668) | 82.78 ± 1.37 (150) | - | 1.12 | 0.2896 | NS | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 80.17 ± 0.48 (1365) | 79.62 ± 1.00 (311) | - | 0.25 | 0.6197 | NS | |
| SNP-03 | AA | AG | GG | |||||
| P1 | 858 | 79.99 ± 0.64 a (782) | 65.69 ± 2.06 b (76) | - | 44.03 | <0.0001 | *** | |
| P2 | 818 | 83.28 ± 0.65 a (642) | 74.87 ± 1.24 b (176) | - | 36.30 | <0.0001 | *** | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 81.47 ± 0.46 a (1424) | 72.10 ± 1.09 b (252) | - | 62.55 | <0.0001 | *** | |
| SNP-04 | GG | GA | GG | |||||
| P1 | 858 | 78.92 ± 0.90 (421) | 78.54 ± 0.88 (437) | - | 0.09 | 0.7633 | NS | |
| P2 | 818 | 81.08 ± 0.83 (405) | 81.86 ± 0.83 (413) | - | 0.45 | 0.5015 | NS | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 79.97 ± 0.61 (826) | 80.15 ± 0.61 (850) | - | 0.04 | 0.8355 | NS | |
| SNP-05 | AA | AG | GG | |||||
| P1 | 858 | - | 72.43 ± 1.79 b (104) | 79.59 ± 0.66 a (754) | 14.09 | <0.0001 | *** | |
| P2 | 818 | - | 74.50 ± 1.09 b (223) | 84.09 ± 0.67 a (595) | 56.57 | <0.0001 | *** | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | - | 73.84 ± 0.96 b (327) | 81.57 ± 0.47 a (1349) | 51.96 | <0.0001 | *** | |
P1 = First population, P2 = Second population, P1 + P2 = Total (both first and second) population, n = Number of individual, SNP = Single nucleotide polymorphism, RAPGEF6 = Rap Guanine Nucleotide Exchange Factor 6, LSM = Least squares of mean, SEM = Standard error of mean, G = Genotypes (i.e., TT, TC, CC). The values in parentheses indicate the numbers of chicken for their corresponding group. * = Significant at p < 0.1, ** = Significant at p < 0.01, *** = Significant at p < 0.001, a, b, c = LSM values bearing different letters in each column are significantly different at *, ** and ***, NS = Non-significant at p > 0.5.
Association analysis between the haplotype inferred through AX-75745340 (A15829057G) & AX-75745341 (A15829303G) in chicken RAPGEF6 gene and egg-laying rate of Chinese Jing Hong chicken population.
| Trait | Population |
| Haplotype Frequency (LSM ± SEM) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level of Significance | |||||||||
| Laying Rate | |||||||||
| P1 | 858 | 79.79 ± 0.40 ab (724) | 83.03 ± 2.33 a (58) | 75.85 ± 3.24 b (30) | 59.07 ± 2.62 c (46) | 20.963 | <0.0001 | *** | |
| P2 | 818 | 84.50 ± 0.70 a (534) | 77.27 ± 1.56 b (108) | 80.46 ± 2.07 ab (61) | 71.90 ± 1.51 c (115) | 22.226 | <0.0001 | *** | |
| P1 + P2 | 1676 | 81.76 ± 0.49 a (1258) | 79.28 ± 1.34 a (166) | 78.94 ± 1.8 a (91) | 68.23 ± 1.36 b (161) | 0.246 | <0.0001 | *** | |
P1 = First population, P2 = Second population, P1 + P2 = Total (both first and second) population, n = Number of individual, SNP = Single nucleotide polymorphism, RAPGEF6 = Rap Guanine Nucleotide Exchange Factor 6, LSM = Least squares of mean, SEM = Standard error of mean, H = Haplotypes (i.e., AAGG, AAAG, AGGG and AGAG). The values in parentheses indicate the number of chicken for their corresponding group. * = Significant at p < 0.1, ** = Significant at p < 0.01, *** = Significant at p < 0.001, a, b, c = LSM values within a row for each haplotype lacking a common superscript differ significantly p < 0.05).
Figure 4(a–c) Linkage disequilibrium (LD) of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at the RAPGEF6 gene in egg-laying rate in Chinese Jing Hong Chicken. Pairwise correlation (D’) values are shown between polymorphisms, which were calculated from the genotypic data of 858, 816, and 1676 chicken for P1, P2, and P1 + P2, respectively. Block colors indicate the LD status of SNPs; deep red means high linkages between two SNPs. The haplotypes block was defined by using the default setting of the Haploview software.