4.5 Article

Parallel Selection Revealed by Population Sequencing in Chicken

期刊

GENOME BIOLOGY AND EVOLUTION
卷 7, 期 12, 页码 3299-3306

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/gbe/evv222

关键词

improvement; selective sweep; domestication; population differentiation

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [QA55/1-1]
  2. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) [FKZ 0315528C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Human-driven selection during domestication and subsequent breed formation has likely left detectable signatures within the genome of modern chicken. The elucidation of these signatures of selection is of interest from the perspective of evolutionary biology, and for identifying genes relevant to domestication and improvement that ultimately may help to further genetically improve this economically important animal. We used whole genome sequence data from 50 hens of commercial white (WL) and brown (BL) egg-laying chicken along with pool sequences of three meat-type chicken to perform a systematic screening of past selection in modern chicken. Evidence of positive selection was investigated in two steps. First, we explored evidence of parallel fixation in regions with overlapping elevated allele frequencies in replicated populations of layers and broilers, suggestive of selection during domestication or preimprovement ages. We confirmed parallel fixation in BCDO2 and TSHR genes and found four candidates including AGTR2, a gene heavily involved in Ascites in commercial birds. Next, we explored differentiated loci between layers and broilers suggestive of selection during improvement in chicken. This analysis revealed evidence of parallel differentiation in genes relevant to appearance and production traits exemplified with the candidate gene OPG, implicated in Osteoporosis, a disorder related to overconsumption of calcium in egg-laying hens. Our results illustrate the potential for population genetic techniques to identify genomic regions relevant to the phenotypes of importance to breeders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据