| Literature DB >> 35428174 |
Na Luo1, Jingting Shu2, Xiaoya Yuan1, Yuxi Jin1, Huanxian Cui1, Guiping Zhao1, Jie Wen3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chicken intramuscular fat (IMF) content is closely related to meat quality and performance, such as tenderness and flavor. Abdominal fat (AF) in chickens is one of the main waste products at slaughter. Excessive AF reduces feed efficiency and carcass quality.Entities:
Keywords: Abdominal fat; Chicken; Intramuscular fat; Transcriptomics; WGCNA
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35428174 PMCID: PMC9013108 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-022-08538-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 4.547
Fig. 1Venn diagrams of genes differentially expressed in the breast muscle and abdominal fat of broiler chickens
Phenotypes of Wenchang chicken in different tissues
| Phenotypes | Breast Muscle | Abdominal Fat |
|---|---|---|
| IMF/AFP | 1.2944 ± 0.1089a | 4.7266 ± 0.3988b |
| TG | 4.9691 ± 0.5710a | 23.5572 ± 1.8791b |
| C10:0 | ND | 0.0093 ± 0.0005 |
| C12:0 | 0.0364 ± 0.0023 | 0.0280 ± 0.0009 |
| C14:0 | 0.4470 ± 0.0145 | 0.6762 ± 0.0117 |
| C14:1 | 0.0788 ± 0.0052 | 0.1531 ± 0.0075 |
| C15:0 | 0.0706 ± 0.0016a | 0.08967 ± 0.0033 |
| C16:0 | 26.1824 ± 0.1856a | 27.2354 ± 0.3255b |
| C16:1 | 2.8540 ± 0.1824 | 5.1318 ± 0.2777 |
| C17:0 | 0.1328 ± 0.0062 | 0.1417 ± 0.0060 |
| C18:0 | 11.5981 ± 0.2874 | 6.9239 ± 0.2392 |
| C18:1n9c | 28.9134 ± 0.7301a | 39.0340 ± 0.3500b |
| C18:2n6c | 17.6387 ± 0.1924a | 18.7408 ± 0.4955b |
| C18:3n3 | 0.4663 ± 0.0158 | 0.8446 ± 0.0158 |
| C20:0 | 0.1898 ± 0.0083 | 0.1227 ± 0.0056 |
| C20:1 | 0.2493 ± 0.0079 | 0.3452 ± 0.0129 |
| C20:2 | ND | 0.0132 ± 0.0007 |
| C20:3n3 | 0.1106 ± 0.0080a | 0.0082 ± 0.0007b |
| C20:3n6 | 0.9901 ± 0.0583a | 0.0846 ± 0.0042b |
| C20:4n6 | 7.8473 ± 0.4910a | 0.1625 ± 0.0135b |
| C20:5n3 | 0.1186 ± 0.0073a | 0.0082 ± 0.0009b |
| C21:0 | 0.4080 ± 0.0460a | 0.1433 ± 0.0074b |
| C22:0 | 0.1949 ± 0.0152a | 0.0254 ± 0.0015b |
| C22:1n9 | 0.1233 ± 0.0098a | 0.0214 ± 0.0008b |
| C22:2 | ND | 0.0039 ± 0.0009 |
| C22:6n3 | 0.8751 ± 0.0648a | 0.0139 ± 0.0016b |
| C23:0 | 0.0872 ± 0.0053a | 0.0233 ± 0.0009b |
| C24:0 | 0.1540 ± 0.0084a | 0.0131 ± 0.0013b |
| C24:1 | 0.2333 ± 0.0130a | 0.0027 ± 0.0008b |
Note: Means differences of fatty acids among treatments were determined with Duncan’s multiple range test. a, b Means in the same rows with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05) (n = 18). ND means not detected
Fig. 2Principal component analysis (PCA) results of BM and AF tissue. A. PCA of phenotypes in BM and AF. B. PCA of genes expressed in both BM and AF. C. PCA of genes expressed in BM. D. PCA of genes expressed in AF
Fig. 3Clustering of gene modules. A. Breast muscle tissue microarray. B. Abdominal fat tissue microarray. Upper panel: genes were clustered into different groups. Lower panel: genes were assigned to modules after dynamic tree-cutting and merging
Fig. 4Relationship between gene modules and traits in breast muscle tissue (A) and abdominal fat tissue (B). Note: The upper value in each module is the correlation coefficient between the module and the lower character, and the lower value is the p-value of the coefficient
Fig. 5Venn of module characteristic genes and differential expression genes. A. Breast muscle tissue. B. Abdominal fat tissue
Fig. 6Pathway enrichment analysis of co-expression genes in breast muscle (A) and abdominal fat (B)
Fig. 7Network of pathways and genes in breast muscle tissue (A) and abdominal fat tissue (B)