Skip to main content
PMC home page
Springer logoLink to Springer
. 2020 Feb 5;52(3):915–926. doi: 10.1007/s11250-019-02063-1

Genetic polymorphism association analysis of SNPs on the species conservation genes of Tan sheep and Hu sheep

Hehua EEr 1, Lina Ma 1, Xiulan Xie 1, Jifeng Ma 1, Xiaoming Ma 1, Caijuan Yue 1, Qing Ma 1, Xiaojun Liang 1, Wei Ding 1,✉, Yingkang Li 1,✉
PMCID: PMC7190689  PMID: 32026291

Abstract

For further understanding the genetic control mechanisms of growth and development in Tan sheep, and culturing good traits on meat performance, which is very important to both in developing local species and improving economic efficaciously. In our study, we recruited a total of 250 Tan sheep and 174 healthy Hu sheep to detect 32 SNPs in GH, GHR, NPY, Leptin, H-FABP, MSTN, and CAST by using direct sequencing techniques, in order to explore genetic marking loci which were an association with growth characters. From the results, we found different SNPs with an obvious difference for the growth traits. In the different genetic model analysis, we found SNP12, SNP29, SNP41, SNP8, SNP34, SNP35, SNP9, SNP10, SNP36, SNP45, and SNP39 were a significantly negative association with the two kinds of sheep. And SNP46, SNP42, and SNP69 with the positive association between the different trait in sheep were analyzed. From the LD and haplotype analysis, we found three blocks with the positive association in growth traits between Tan sheep and Hu sheep. The block of SNP29, SNP32, SNP34, SNP35, SNP36, SNP39, SNP41, SNP42, SNP45, and SNP46 with the genotype “AATCTACTTA” is the most significantly association with the traits. In summary, the study initially explored the genes for growth and reproduction between Tan sheep and Hu sheep and found some statistically significant results which demonstrate that there are genetic differences. These differential molecular markers may provide a scientific theoretical basis for the preferred species of Tan sheep which with good meat performance and better utilization of species resources.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11250-019-02063-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Keywords: Tan sheep, SNPs, Association analysis, Biomarker

Introduction

As an important part of the animal husbandry industry, the sheep industry not only produces raw materials for the wool spinning industry, but also provides people with delicious lamb. Lamb is prevalent in the domestic and international markets because of its characteristics of lean meat, less fat, fresh, juicy, and easy to digest. China’s mutton sheep production needs better varieties with high meat production and good meat quality which require the continuous selection of meat quality in the breeding of sheep to improve the quality of mutton (Zhang et al. 2015).

Tan sheep are a special breed of sheep with excellent suede formed through long-term natural and artificial selection, and artificial breeding (Lv et al. 2009). Tan sheep have the characteristics of drought resistance, salt and alkali resistance, and resistance to roughage, and show great adaptability to desert, semi-desert, and arid steppe (Kang et al. 2013). The character of Tan sheep suede is a combination of light, thin, soft, warm, beautiful, and pleasing (Xu et al. 2011) which listed as one of the “Five Treasures” in Ningxia. As a unique product of Ningxia, Tan sheep is the result of the unique ecological environment in Ningxia (Xu et al. 2015) and listed as the second-tier protected animal by Chinese government (Tao et al. 2017). Grassland in Ningxia is characterized by drought, sparse rain, and low grass production. However, it has the characteristics of high dry matter content, abundant salt, and mineral content, and it is a natural gift for Tan sheep breeding. Hu sheep is one of the important livestock in Taihu Plain of China which has high reproductive rate, long estrus period, and an average litter size of 2.06 (Feng et al. 2018). It not only has high reproductive performance, fast growth performance, and strong environmental adaptability, but also has the advantages of multiple lambs per fetus, good lactation performance, and fast growth and development (Zhicheng et al. 2018).

Intramuscular fat (IMF) content is a very important indicator of meat quality, mainly in the epicardium and muscle fascia as well as the endomysium, which is an important economic trait with moderately high heritability (Hovenier et al. 1993; Won et al. 2018). With the improvement of people’s living standards and dietary structure, people’s demand for mutton consumption continues to enhance (Sahin et al. 2014). However, traditional breeding methods mainly emphasize the improvement of the sheep’s production performance (XC et al. 2015), and the results will lead to a decline in the quality of the lamb meat, especially the meat flavor (Xiong et al. 2017). Chinese mutton sheep production needs better varieties with high meat production and good meat quality that require the continuous selection of meat quality in the breeding of sheep to improve the quality of mutton. Classic breeding methods are mainly through cross breeding, which leaves individuals with excellent quality and breeds an excellent and stable phenotype after several generations of breeding (Bittante et al. 1996). However, the conventional method has great difficulty in selecting meat quality traits. Not only it needs a considerable expense for breeding, but also it cannot be accurately detected.

The formation of meaty traits is essentially the product of the interaction between genes and the environment (Lebret et al. 2015). Studies have shown that genetic factors play a key role in meat quality. In general, 10~30% of the variation of meat quality traits and the quality of meat products are determined by the genetic material of the animal (Lefaucheur 2010; Davoli and Braglia 2007). With the rapid development of molecular biology theory and technology, molecular genetics and genetic engineering methods, combined with the traditional methods of marker-assisted selection, have provided better solutions for the breeding problems (Jamshidi et al. 2009).

As a famous suede sheep breed in China (Cui et al. 1962), Tan sheep are known for the world with its delicious meat. Hu sheep are known with the famous multiplicity sheep varieties in the world. Tan sheep have some prominent problems, such as slow growth and development, long feeding cycle, low reproduction rate, poor breeding efficiency, decline of breeds, and degradation of quality, which are relative advantages of Hu sheep. In view of the intrinsic interaction mechanism and biological functions of GH (growth hormone), GHR (growth hormone receptor), NPY (neuropeptide Y), Leptin, H-FABP (Heart fatty acid-binding proteins), MSTN (myostatin), and CAST (calpastatin), the study focused on the genetic effects of their polymorphisms on the growth and development of Tan sheep, with a view to discovering genetic markers with significant effects on growth traits and providing scientific basis for the high-quality breeding of Tan sheep and the protection and utilization of germplasm resources.

Methods

Study participants

The study samples include 250 healthy Tan sheep as the case and 174 healthy Hu sheep as the control group (Ningxia Lingwu Luyuan Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd.) to explore the difference. Tan sheep and Hu sheep are all raised in the Ningxia Yanchi County Tanyang Breeding Center. They are in the same ecological environment and are kept in a normally raised according to the sheep farm diet formula. Their recruitment time is from September 2015 to January 2017, and is carried out by means of whole house feeding. The lambs born in the same period were selected to measure their body weight and body size indicators. Body size indicators include body height, body length, and chest circumference. The lamb’s birth weight and body size indicators are measured before the lamb is born and eating colostrum. The selected samples kept the same husbandry and management level, and individual nutritional status in the same period. When they were born 1 year later, we took blood samples from each sheep and labeled them, and then returned to the laboratory at low temperature − 20 °C. According to the animal husbandry methods, we measured the basic growth and development trait indicators which included birth weight, weaning weight, 3 months weight, and 6 months weight which ensure that all sample nutrition levels differ by less than 5%. The animal ethics and welfare committee of NingXia Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences approved the experimental procedures which is in compliance with the regulations for protection of animal research.

SNP selection and genotyping

For the association analysis, we selected these 32 validated SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphisms) from some researches (the sequence information listed in supplement--SNPs information). The SNPs (single-nucleotide polymorphism) for the present study were selected following three criteria: (a) the SNP call rate was > 90%, (b) the minor allele frequency (MAF) was > 0.05%, and (c) the allele frequencies of the control group were consistent with the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. These selected SNPs have not been named yet and are just some novel SNPs. They are only located in the meat quality–related gene sequences of GH (growth hormone), GHR (growth hormone receptor), NPY (Neuropeptide Y), Leptin, H-FABP (heart fatty acid-binding proteins), MSTN (myostatin), and CAST (calpastatin) according to the Genbank published (listed in the supplement material-SNPs information). DNA was extracted from blood samples using a genomic DNA purification kit (GoldMag, China), and the blood was stored with a condition of − 20 °C. The DNA concentration was measured by spectrometry (DU530 UV/VIS spectrophotometer, Beckman Instruments, Fullerton, CA, USA). The Sequenom MassARRAY Assay Design 4.0 software (Sequenom, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) was used to design the Multiplexed SNP Mass EXTEND assay (Trembizki et al. 2014). Genotyping SNPs were performed using a Sequenom MassARRAY RS1000 (Sequenom, Inc.) according to the standard protocol.

Statistical analysis

The SequenomTyper 4.0 Software™ (Sequenom, Inc.) was used to manage and analyze the data. The univariate and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between Tan sheep and Hu sheep, and corresponding odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated simultaneously. All statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS19.0 statistical software (SPSS. Chicago, IL) and Microsoft Excel, and a two-tailed p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Logistic regression analysis was performed on all SNP loci. The analysis models include dominant, recessive, log-additive, and codominant model (which reference to normality homozygous). PLINK software (http://pngu.mgh.harvard.edu/purcell/plink/) was used by the models to evaluate the association of 32 SNPs between the two kinds of sheep. Lastly, Haploview software (version 4.2) was conducted to analyses linkage disequilibrium (LD).

Results

Significant SNPs in Tan sheep

Thirty-two SNPs were successfully genotyped in the sheep, and all of the tested SNPs were in accordance with Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) in both groups (p > 0.01). We detected the minor allele of each SNP which was assumed to be the wild-type allele. MAF (Minor Allele Frequency) in cases and controls was showed in Table 1. Under the allele genetic model through the χ2 test, we found the SNP12 (OR = 0.56, p = 0.000096), SNP29 (OR = 0.55, p = 0.000076), SNP41 (OR = 0.57, p = 0.0047), SNP8 (OR = 0.199, p = 2.3 × 10−8), SNP34 (OR = 0.54, p = 0.000057), SNP35 (OR = 0.53, p = 0.000039), SNP9 (OR = 0.194, p = 1.172 × 10−8), SNP10 (OR = 0.47, p = 0.000011), SNP36(OR = 0.53, p = 0.000039), SNP45 (OR = 0.54, p = 0.000057), and SNP39 (OR = 0.55, p = 0.000076) were significantly negatively correlated with growth trait differences between the two kinds of sheep. And SNP46 (OR = 4.848, p = 0.00035), SNP42 (OR = 5.027, p = 0.000039), and SNP69 (OR = 1.784, p = 0.000083) were positively correlated with these characters. These differences are consistent before and after FDR correction except the SNP61. The association of SNP61 and the trait is OR = 2.456, p < 0.05, after FDR, p > 0.05. After the χ2 test in other methods such as codominant, dominant, and recessive, we further analyzed the differences between the two kinds of sheep and found SNP12, SNP29, SNP34, SNP35, SNP9, SNP10, SNP36, SNP45, SNP39, and SNP69 as significant association with the characters of the two groups (Table 2). From the results, we found only the SNP69 has significant significance in all models which means SNP69 would significantly increase the difference of growth traits between Tan sheep and Hu sheep. SNP61 increased the difference at dominant and additive models (OR = 2.534, p = 0.035) before FDR correction. In the dominant and log-additive models, SNP46 and SNP42 increased the growth traits difference whether or not FDR corrected. And when SNP46 is the genotype “G/A” and SNP42 with “C/T” in codominant model, we discovered the difference is increased before FDR (false discovery rate) correction. However, SNP12, SNP29, SNP34, SNP35, SNP10, SNP36, SNP45, and SNP39 in these models, all of which, indicated their regulated trait significant difference between the two kinds of sheep (Table 3 and supplement Excel-Table 3).

Table 1.

The basic characters of 32 SNPs located in 7 genes

SNP Gene A B HWE Tan sheep MAF-Tan HWE_Tan Hu sheep MAF-Hu HWE_Hu
SNP3 GH T C 0.2568 8/84/158 0.2 0.5536 8/70/96 0.2471 0.4136
SNP4 GH G A 0.2568 8/84/158 0.2 0.5536 8/70/96 0.2471 0.4136
SNP8 GH C T 1 0/14/236 0.028 1 2/40/132 0.1264 1
SNP9 GH T A 0.4425 0/14/236 0.028 1 3/39/132 0.1293 1
SNP10 GHR G A 0.1245 7/60/183 0.148 0.4501 15/64/95 0.2701 0.4405
SNP12 GHR C T 0.5809 20/96/134 0.272 0.6329 27/85/62 0.3994 0.8752
SNP15 NPY A G 1 5/55/190 0.13 0.5819 2/41/131 0.1293 0.7428
SNP18 NPY G A 0.8032 19/100/131 0.276 1 12/63/99 0.25 0.6858
SNP20 NPY A T 1 2/40/208 0.088 1 2/39/133 0.1236 1
SNP21 LEPTIN A G 0.1999 0/24/226 0.048 1 3/22/149 0.0805 0.08154
SNP22 LEPTIN G A 1 0/4/246 0.008 1 0/0/174 0 1
SNP24 LEPTIN C 0 1 0/0/248 0 1 0/0/174 0 1
SNP25 LEPTIN G A 0.04198 1/7/242 0.018 0.07063 0/0/174 0 1
SNP28 LEPTIN G A 0.3478 1/14/235 0.032 0.2194 0/11/163 0.0316 1
SNP29 H-FABP A G 0.9071 15/91/144 0.242 0.8643 22/84/68 0.3678 0.7443
SNP32 H-FABP A G 1 0/3/247 0.006 1 0/0/174 0 1
SNP34 H-FABP T C 0.9065 15/90/145 0.24 0.8623 22/84/68 0.3678 0.7443
SNP35 H-FABP C G 0.7262 15/90/145 0.24 0.8623 23/83/68 0.3707 0.8712
SNP36 H-FABP T A 0.7262 15/90/145 0.24 0.8623 23/83/68 0.3707 0.8712
SNP39 H-FABP A G 0.9071 15/91/144 0.242 0.8643 22/84/68 0.3678 0.7443
SNP41 H-FABP C T 1 12/76/162 0.2 0.4299 13/80/81 0.3046 0.3697
SNP42 H-FABP C T 0.6007 1/32/216 0.0683 1 0/5/169 0.0144 1
SNP45 H-FABP T C 0.9065 15/90/145 0.24 0.8623 22/84/68 0.3678 0.7443
SNP46 H-FABP G A 0.5801 1/31/218 0.066 1 0/5/169 0.0144 1
SNP47 MSTN A 0 1 0/0/250 0 1 0/0/174 0 1
SNP48 MSTN A 0 1 0/0/250 0 1 0/0/174 0 1
SNP50 MSTN A 0 1 0/0/250 0 1 0/0/174 0 1
SNP51 MSTN T 0 1 0/0/250 0 1 0/0/174 0 1
SNP54 MSTN A 0 1 0/0/249 0 1 0/0/174 0 1
SNP57 MSTN A 0 1 0/0/250 0 1 0/0/174 0 1
SNP61 MSTN T C 1 0/24/226 0.048 1 0/7/167 0.0201 1
SNP69 CAST A G 0.6796 46/124/80 0.432 0.8982 12/80/82 0.2989 0.2767
Open in a new tab

HWE, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; MAF, minor allele frequency

Table 2.

The significantly results about 32 SNPs in genetic models between two kinds of sheep

SNP Model Genotype Tan Hu ChiScore OR (95% CI) p FDR_BH adjustedb
SNP8 Codominant C/C 236 132 31.29 1.60E−07a
C/T 14 40
T/T 0 2
Dominant C/C 236 132 30.76 2.93E−08
C/T-T/T 14 42
Recessive C/C-C/T 250 172 2.887 8.93E−02
T/T 0 2
Allele C 486 304 31.2 0.199 (0.1073–0.3693) 2.32E−08 5.58E−07
T 14 44
SNP9 Codominant T/T 236 132 31.58 1.39E−07
T/A 14 39
A/A 0 3
Dominant T/T 236 132 30.76 2.93E−08
T/A-A/A 14 42
Recessive T/T-T/A 250 171 4.341 3.72E−02
A/A 0 3
Allele T 486 303 32.53 0.194 (0.1047–0.3594) 1.17E−08 2.93E−07
A 14 45
SNP10 Codominant G/G 183 95 17.84 1.33E−04
G/A 60 64
A/A 7 15
Dominant G/G 183 95 15.73 7.33E−05
G/A-A/A 67 79
Recessive G/G-G/A 243 159 7.066 7.86E−03
A/A 7 15
Allele G 426 254 19.26 0.4694 (0.3334–0.6607) 1.14E−05 2.62E−04
A 74 94
SNP12 Codominant C/C 134 62 15.02 5.48E−04
C/T 96 85
T/T 20 27
Dominant C/C 134 62 13.32 2.62E−04
C/T-T/T 116 112
Recessive C/C-C/T 230 147 5.882 1.53E−02
T/T 20 27
Allele C 364 209 15.2 0.5618 (0.4198–0.7517) 9.65E−05 1.45E−03
T 136 139
SNP21 Codominant A/A 226 149 5.45 6.55E−02
A/G 24 22
G/G 0 3
Dominant A/A 226 149 2.282 1.31E−01
A/G-G/G 24 25
Recessive A/A-A/G 250 171 4.341 3.72E−02
G/G 0 3
Allele A 476 320 3.756 0.5762 (0.3281–1.012) 5.26E−02 3.85E−01
G 24 28
SNP25 Codominant G/G 242 174 5.675 5.86E−02
G/A 7 0
A/A 1 0
Dominant G/G 242 174 5.675 1.72E−02
G/A-A/A 8 0
Recessive G/G-G/A 249 174 0.6976 4.04E-01
A/A 1 0
Allele G 491 348 6.331 NA (NA–NA) 1.19E−02 1.23E−01
A 9 0
SNP29 Codominant A/A 144 68 15.73 3.84E−04
A/G 91 84
G/G 15 22
Dominant A/A 144 68 14.07 1.76E−04
A/G-G/G 106 106
Recessive A/A-A/G 235 152 5.685 1.71E−02
G/G 15 22
Allele A 379 220 15.66 0.5487 (0.4069–0.7399) 7.58E−05 1.36E−03
G 121 128
SNP34 Codominant T/T 145 68 16.27 2.94E−04
T/C 90 84
C/C 15 22
Dominant T/T 145 68 14.69 1.27E−04
T/C-C/C 105 106
Recessive T/T-T/C 235 152 5.685 1.71E−02
C/C 15 22
Allele T 380 220 16.2 0.5428 (0.4024–0.7322) 5.70E−05 1.14E−03
C 120 128
SNP35 Codominant C/C 145 68 16.72 2.34E−04
C/G 90 83
G/G 15 23
Dominant C/C 145 68 14.69 1.27E−04
C/G-G/G 105 106
Recessive C/C-C/G 235 151 6.552 1.05E−02
G/G 15 23
Allele C 380 219 16.9 0.5361 (0.3975–0.723) 3.95E−05 8.68E−04
G 120 129
SNP36 Codominant T/T 145 68 16.72 2.34E−04
T/A 90 83
A/A 15 23
Dominant T/T 145 68 14.69 1.27E−04
T/A-A/A 105 106
Recessive T/T-T/A 235 151 6.552 1.05E−02
A/A 15 23
Allele T 380 219 16.9 0.5361 (0.3975–0.723) 3.95E−05 8.68E−04
A 120 129
SNP39 Codominant A/A 144 68 15.73 3.84E−04
A/G 91 84
G/G 15 22
Dominant A/A 144 68 14.07 1.76E−04
A/G-G/G 106 106
Recessive A/A-A/G 235 152 5.685 1.71E−02
G/G 15 22
Allele A 379 220 15.66 0.5487 (0.4069–0.7399) 7.58E−05 1.36E−03
G 121 128
SNP41 Codominant C/C 162 81 13.97 9.26E−04
C/T 76 80
T/T 12 13
Dominant C/C 162 81 13.96 1.86E−04
C/T-T/T 88 93
Recessive C/C-C/T 238 161 1.319 2.51E−01
T/T 12 13
Allele C 400 242 12.21 0.5708 (0.4159–0.7832) 4.76E−04 5.70E−03
T 100 106
SNP42 Codominant C/C 216 169 13.57 1.13E−03
C/T 32 5
T/T 1 0
Dominant C/C 216 169 13.5 2.39E−04
C/T-T/T 33 5
Recessive C/C-C/T 248 174 0.7005 4.03E−01
T/T 1 0
Allele C 464 343 13.54 5.027 (1.946–12.99) 2.34E−04 3.27E−03
T 34 5
SNP45 Codominant T/T 145 68 16.27 2.94E−04
T/C 90 84
C/C 15 22
Dominant T/T 145 68 14.69 1.27E−04
T/C-C/C 105 106
Recessive T/T-T/C 235 152 5.685 1.71E−02
C/C 15 22
Allele T 380 220 16.2 0.5428 (0.4024–0.7322) 5.70E−05 1.14E-03
C 120 128
SNP46 Codominant G/G 218 169 12.77 1.69E−03
G/A 31 5
A/A 1 0
Dominant G/G 218 169 12.69 3.67E−04
G/A-A/A 32 5
Recessive G/G-G/A 249 174 0.6976 4.04E−01
A/A 1 0
Allele G 467 343 12.78 4.848 (1.873–12.55) 3.50E−04 4.55E-03
A 33 5
SNP61 Codominant T/T 226 167 NA NA
T/C 24 7
C/C 0 0
Dominant T/T 226 167 4.709 3.00E−02
T/C-C/C 24 7
Recessive T/T-T/C 250 174 NA NA
C/C 0 0
Allele T 476 341 4.53 2.456 (1.046–5.766) 3.33E−02 2.87E−01
C 24 7
A 16 11
SNP69 Codominant A/A 80 82 16.35 2.82E−04
A/G 124 80
G/G 46 12
Dominant A/A 80 82 9.943 1.62E−03
A/G-G/G 170 92
Recessive A/A-A/G 204 162 11.5 6.97E−04
G/G 46 12
Allele A 284 244 15.48 1.784 (1.335–2.384) 8.33E−05 1.36E−03
G 216 104
Open in a new tab

aIndicate that the data is statistically significant (p < 0.05)

bFDR_BH: false discovery rate_ Benjamini-Hochberg correction

Table 3.

The significant results of logistic regression analysis within all SNP loci

SNP Model Genotype Tan Hu OR (95% CI) P value FDR_BH adjusted
SNP8 Codominant C/C 236 132 – – –
C/T 14 40 0.1958 (0.1027–0.3731) 7.16E−07a 1.00E+00
T/T 0 2 3.462e−10 (0-inf) 9.99E−01 1.00E+00
Dominant C/C 236 132 0.1864 (0.09818–0.354) 2.84E−07a 4.55E−06b
C/T-T/T 14 42
Recessive C/C-C/T 250 172 4.259e−10 (0-inf) 9.99E−01 1.00E+00
T/T 0 2
Additive – – – 0.1909 (0.1013–0.3599) 3.07E−07a 5.04E−06b
SNP9 Codominant T/T 236 132 – – –
T/A 14 39 0.2008 (0.1052–0.3834) 1.14E−06a 1.00E+00
A/A 0 3 3.462e−10 (0-inf) 9.99E−01 1.00E+00
Dominant T/T 236 132 0.1864 (0.09818–0.354) 2.84E−07a 4.55E−06b
T/A-A/A 14 42
Recessive T/T-T/A 250 171 4.234e−10 (0-inf) 9.99E−01 1.00E+00
A/A 0 3
Additive – – – 0.1931 (0.1028–0.3627) 3.15E−07a 5.04E−06b
SNP10 Codominant G/G 183 95 – – –
G/A 60 64 0.4867 (0.3164–0.7487) 1.05E−03a 1.01E−02b
A/A 7 15 0.2423 (0.09551–0.6145) 2.83E−03a 1.01E−02b
Dominant G/G 183 95 0.4403 (0.2924–0.6628) 8.50E−05a 6.43E−04b
G/A-A/A 67 79
Recessive G/G-G/A 243 159 0.3053 (0.1218–0.7656) 1.14E−02a 6.95E−02
A/A 7 15
Additive – – – 0.4892 (0.3483–0.687) 3.69E−05a 3.25E−04b
SNP12 Codominant C/C 134 62 – – –
C/T 96 85 0.5226 (0.3436–0.7948) 2.42E−03a 7.78E−03b
T/T 20 27 0.3427 (0.1786–0.6578) 1.28E−03a 7.78E−03b
Dominant C/C 134 62 0.4792 (0.322–0.7131) 2.87E−04a 8.35E−04b
C/T-T/T 116 112
Recessive C/C-C/T 230 147 0.4734 (0.2562–0.8749) 1.70E−02a 6.95E−02
T/T 20 27
Additive – – – 0.5645 (0.4201–0.7583) 1.47E−04a 4.27E−04b
SNP29 Codominant A/A 144 68 – – –
A/G 91 84 0.5116 (0.3383–0.7737) 1.49E−03a 7.78E−03b
G/G 15 22 0.322 (0.1572–0.6594) 1.95E−03a 7.78E−03b
Dominant A/A 144 68 0.4722 (0.3183–0.7006) 1.93E−04a 6.56E−04b
A/G-G/G 106 106
Recessive A/A-A/G 235 152 0.441 (0.2218–0.8768) 1.96E−02a 6.95E−02
G/G 15 22
Additive – – – 0.5441 (0.4003–0.7396) 1.02E−04a 3.25E−04b
SNP34 Codominant T/T 145 68 – – –
T/C 90 84 0.5025 (0.3321–0.7602) 1.12E−03a 7.78E−03b
C/C 15 22 0.3197 (0.1561–0.6548) 1.82E−03a 7.78E−03b
Dominant T/T 145 68 0.4645(0.313–0.6894) 1.41E−04a 6.43E−04b
T/C-C/C 105 106
Recessive T/T-T/C 235 152 0.441 (0.2218–0.8768) 1.96E−02a 6.95E−02
C/C 15 22
Additive – – – 0.5391 (0.3965–0.7328) 7.99E−05a 3.25E−04b
SNP35 Codominant C/C 145 68 – – –
C/G 90 83 0.5085 (0.3359–0.7698) 1.39E−03a 7.78E−03b
G/G 15 23 0.3058 (0.1502–0.623) 1.10E−03a 7.78E−03b
Dominant C/C 145 68 0.4645 (0.313–0.6894) 1.41E−04a 6.43E−04b
C/G-G/G 105 106
Recessive C/C-C/G 235 151 0.4191 (0.2119–0.8287) 1.24E−02a 6.95E−02
G/G 15 23
Additive – – – 0.5349 (0.394–0.7262) 6.06E−05a 3.25E−04b
SNP36 Codominant T/T 145 68 – – –
T/A 90 83 0.5085 (0.3359–0.7698) 1.39E−03a 7.78E−03b
A/A 15 23 0.3058 (0.1502–0.623) 1.10E−03a 7.78E−03b
Dominant T/T 145 68 0.4645 (0.313–0.6894) 1.41E−04a 6.43E−04b
T/A-A/A 105 106
Recessive T/T-T/A 235 151 0.4191 (0.2119–0.8287) 1.24E−02a 6.95E−02
A/A 15 23
Additive – – – 0.5349 (0.394–0.7262) 6.06E−05a 3.25E−04b
SNP39 Codominant A/A 144 68 – – –
A/G 91 84 0.5116 (0.3383–0.7737) 1.49E−03a 7.78E−03b
G/G 15 22 0.322 (0.1572–0.6594) 1.95E−03a 7.78E−03b
Dominant A/A 144 68 0.4722 (0.3183–0.7006) 1.93E−04a 6.56E−04b
A/G-G/G 106 106
Recessive A/A-A/G 235 152 0.441 (0.2218–0.8768) 1.96E−02a 6.95E−02
G/G 15 22
Additive – – – 0.5441 (0.4003–0.7396) 1.02E−04a 3.25E−04b
SNP41 Codominant C/C 162 81 – – –
C/T 76 80 0.475 (0.3146–0.7171) 3.97E−04a 2.16E−01
T/T 12 13 0.4615 (0.2015–1.057) 6.75E−02 2.16E−01
Dominant C/C 162 81 0.4731 (0.3187–0.7024) 2.05E−04a 6.56E−04b
C/T-T/T 88 93
Recessive C/C-C/T 238 161 0.6244 (0.2779–1.403) 2.54E−01 8.14E−01
T/T 12 13
Additive – – – 0.5659 (0.4094–0.7822) 5.65E−04a 1.51E−03b
SNP42 Codominant C/C 216 169 – – –
C/T 32 5 5.007 (1.91–13.13) 1.05E−03a 1.00E+00
T/T 1 0 1.264e+09 (0-inf) 9.99E−01 1.00E+00
Dominant C/C 216 169 5.164 (1.974–13.51) 8.22E−04a 2.19E−03b
C/T-T/T 33 5
Recessive C/C-C/T 248 174 1.133e+09 (0-inf) 9.99E−01 1.00E+00
T/T 1 0
Additive – – – 5.078 (1.953–13.21) 8.61E−04a 2.12E−03b
SNP45 Codominant T/T 145 68 – – –
T/C 90 84 0.5025 (0.3321–0.7602) 1.12E−03a 7.78E−03b
C/C 15 22 0.3197 (0.1561–0.6548) 1.82E−03a 7.78E−03b
Dominant T/T 145 68 0.4645 (0.313–0.6894) 1.41E−04a 6.43E−04b
T/C-C/C 105 106
Recessive T/T-T/C 235 152 0.441 (0.2218–0.8768) 1.96E−02a 6.95E−02
C/C 15 22
Additive – – – 0.5391 (0.3965–0.7328) 7.99E−05a 3.25E−04b
SNP46 Codominant G/G 218 169 – – –
G/A 31 5 4.806 (1.83–12.62) 1.44E−03a 1.00E+00
A/A 1 0 1.252e+09 (0-inf) 9.99E−01 1.00E+00
Dominant G/G 218 169 4.961 (1.893–13.01) 1.12E−03a 2.77E−03b
G/A-A/A 32 5
Recessive G/G-G/A 249 174 1.129e+09 (0-inf) 9.99E−01 1.00E+00
A/A 1 0
Additive – – – 4.879 (1.874–12.71) 1.17E−03a 2.67E−03b
SNP61 Codominant T/T 226 167 – – –
T/C 24 7 NA (NA–NA) NA 1.00E+00
C/C 0 0 NA (NA–NA) NA 1.00E+00
Dominant T/T 226 167 2.534 (1.066–6.019) 3.53E−02a 7.52E−02
T/C-C/C 24 7
Recessive T/T-T/C 250 174 NA (NA–NA) NA 1.00E+00
C/C 0 0
Additive – – – 2.534 (1.066–6.019) 3.53E−02a 7.52E−02
SNP69 Codominant A/A 80 82 – – –
A/G 124 80 1.589 (1.047–2.411) 2.96E−02a 4.65E−03b
G/G 46 12 3.929 (1.939–7.96) 1.45E−04a 4.65E−03b
Dominant A/A 80 82 1.894 (1.271–2.823) 1.71E−03a 3.90E−03b
A/G-G/G 170 92
Recessive A/A-A/G 204 162 3.044 (1.561–5.937) 1.09E−03a 3.49E−02b
G/G 46 12
Additive – – – 1.831 (1.354–2.476) 8.59E−05a 3.25E−04b
Open in a new tab

aIndicates that the data is statistically significant when before adjustment

bIndicates that the data is statistically significant when after FDR-BH correction

Haplotype analysis

We utilized Haploview software for linkage disequilibrium analysis and build haplotypes. Through analyzing all the 32 SNP loci, we detected the existence of 6 blocks (Fig. 1). From the results, we observed the blocks with the powerful association which listed in Table 4. The block which is consisted of SNP15, SNP18, and SNP20 carried the genotype “GGA” which significantly increased the difference of trait. And we found that the other block which consisted of SNP29, SNP32, SNP34, SNP35, SNP36, SNP39, SNP41, SNP42, SNP45, and SNP46 is the genotype “GACGAGTCCG” that indicated the negative difference between the sheep. But with the genotypes “AATCTACTTA” and “AATCTACCTG”, the difference would become wider.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Blocks found in the linkage disequilibrium (LD) analysis on 32 SNPs. LD is indicated by standard color schemes with bright red (very strong: LOD > 2, D′ = 1), light red (LOD > 2, D′ < 1) and blue (LOD < 2, D′ = 1) for intermediate LD, and white (none: LOD < 2, D′ < 1)

Table 4.

The built haplotype blocks after linkage disequilibrium analysis in these SNPs

Block SNPS Haplotype Tan_F Hu_F OR 95% CI p
HAP1a SNP3;SNP4;SNP8 CAC 100 (0.200) 86 (0.247) 0.7616 0.5488–1.0569 0.1033
TGC 386 (0.772) 218 (0.626) 2.0192 1.4938–2.7293 0
TGT 14 (0.028) 44 (0.126) 0.199 0.1073–0.3693 0
HAP2a SNP8;SNP9 CT 486 (0.972) 303 (0.871) 5.1556 2.7825–9.5525 0
TA 14 (0.028) 44 (0.126) 0.199 0.1073–0.3693 0
HAP3a SNP15;SNP18;SNP20 AGA 297 (0.594) 216 (0.621) 0.8941 0.6753–1.1837 0.4343
GGA 21 (0.042) 2 (0.006) 7.5846 1.7667–32.5610 0.0064b
AAA 138 (0.276) 87 (0.250) 1.1436 0.8372–1.5624 0.3991
GGT 44 (0.088) 43 (0.124) 0.6844 0.4388–1.0676 0.0946
HAP4a SNP21;SNP22 AG 472 (0.944) 320 (0.920) 1.475 0.8572–2.5380 0.1604
GG 24 (0.048) 28 (0.080) 0.5762 0.3281–1.0122 0.0551
HAP5a SNP22;SNP25;SNP28 GGG 479 (0.958) 337 (0.968) 0.7445 0.3543–1.5647 0.4362
GGA 8 (0.016) 11 (0.032) 0.4982 0.1983–1.2515 0.1382
HAP6a

SNP29;SNP32;SNP34;

SNP35;SNP36;SNP39;

SNP41;SNP42;SNP45;SNP46

 GACGAGCCCG 24 (0.048) 23 (0.066) 0.7125 0.3953–1.2841 0.2593
GACGAGTCCG 96 (0.192) 105 (0.302) 0.5499 0.3996–0.7568 0.0002b
AATCTACTTA 32 (0.064) 5 (0.014) 4.6906 1.8090–12.1622 0.0015b
AATCTACCTG 339 (0.678) 213 (0.612) 1.3345 1.0028–1.7760 0.0478b
Open in a new tab

aHAP: Haplotype block

bShows that the single domain has significant statistical significance (p < 0.05)

Discussion

In view of the outstanding problems such as cultivar recession and quality degradation in Tan sheep, the in-depth and meticulous research on the intrinsic factors and genetic laws affecting the good traits of Tan sheep has plagued the protection of Tan sheep breeds and the healthy development of meat industrial development. We wanted to find out some molecular markers of excellent traits in Tan sheep compared with Hu sheep. Molecular marker–assisted breeding served to carry out targeted breeding of Tan sheep and builds a quality breeding system for Tan sheep. In our research, we randomly selected 32 SNPs and found SNP69 located in CAST; SNP42 and SNP46 located in H-FABP are the most significant sites with positive association with the growth trait. Regardless of the sites whether negative or positive association with the meat quality trait, all of these indicated the differences between Tan sheep and Hu sheep.

Fatty acid–binding proteins (FABPs) can be combined with retinol or retinoic acid–binding protein (RBP or RABP) to compose intracellular lipid–binding proteins, which is an important component of intracellular lipid–binding proteins (ILBPs) and accounts for 1 to 8% of total cellular soluble proteins (Haunerland and Spener 2004). The elementary functions of FABPs (fatty acid–binding proteins) are mainly involved in the storage, transport, and metabolism of fatty acids in animal cells and are closely linked to metabolism and inflammation. H-FABP is a member of the FABPs family. The protein tertiary structure mainly consists of 2 short α-helices and 10 antiparallel β-sheets near the N-terminus whose void center in the β-barrel can bind to the H-FABP ligand. A lot of research has been confirmed that H-FABP genes exists in different species. And found the sheep’s H-FABP gene is located on chromosome 2 (Calvo et al. 2002). The study found that H-FABP gene expression levels have an influence on the final differentiation state of cells after mitosis, which mainly depends on fatty acid metabolism. H-FABP has a strong affinity for long-chain fatty acids and has the function of transporting long-chain fatty acids and balancing the metabolism of fatty acids. The stronger the fatty acid metabolism, the higher the expression level of H-FABP gene. H-FABP gene is indispensable for animal physiological regulation, such as long-chain fatty acid uptake, oxidation, fuel selection, and energy metabolism balance (Schaap et al. 1999). The content of IMF is directly related to the flavor of meat. Some researchers found that the increase in IMF content significantly affected the marbling score (p < 0.05) (Cabling et al. 2015). H-FABP is considered as one of the major genes that affect the IMF content. The study of Arnyasi shows different genotypes of pigs; H-FABP have a significant effect on IMF content (Arnyasi et al. 2006). The study on Hu sheep showed that the H-FABP mRNA expression level was positively related to IMF content and was positively effective on IMF accumulation in the early development stage (Chengli et al. 2008). Previous studies have shown that the H-FABP gene may be an important gene that affects slaughter traits and controls meat quality (Huang et al. 2006). In our results, we found that the SNPs located in H-FABP may cause the level of H-FABP expression more than four times higher in Tan sheep than Hu sheep which means Tan sheep meat quality is four times more delicious than Hu sheep. It may be one of the reasons why people prefer to eat Tan sheep meat than Hu sheep.

Calpastatin (CAST) is an important intracellular protein with a molecular mass of approximately 120 ku that specifically inhibits calpain activity (Murachi 1989). Freking et al. mapped the sheep’s CAST gene on chromosome 5 (Freking et al. 1998). CAST plays an important role in muscle formation, degradation, and the tenderization process after slaughter (Ranjbari et al. 2012). After the animals are slaughtered, the ATP (adenosine triphosphate) gradually degrades which in turn enhances the ability of the cells to release calcium ions, so that the calcium-ion concentration in the sarcoplasm finally reaches the level of 10−6 M, eventually activating the CAST activity. Active calpains first decompose filaggrin-, actin-, tropomyosin-, and connexin-binding subunits. Then, the interaction force between the adjacent sarcomere and the Z disk decreases, and finally, it breaks into small segments of multiple sarcomere, and the binding force between myosin and actin in the actomyosin begins to decrease significantly. When the lysosome breaks down, the released tissue protein interacts with calpain to promote tenderization of meat (Kretchmar et al. 1994). Ropka et al. researched a number of pig breeds in Poland and found that the CAST gene not only has an effect on the pH, hardness, and toughness of pork, but also significantly affects the skeletal hydraulic and intramuscular fat content of pork (Ropka-Molik et al. 2014). The results of Casas et al. showed that the CC genotype of the CAST gene was significantly associated with iron and heme iron in beef (Casas et al. 2014). The study of Calvo et al. indicated that the exon 7 of the cattle CAST gene (g.98535683A>G) is related to the tenderness of beef (Calvo et al. 2014). Our study showed a clear correlation between the CAST SNP69 and the difference in meat quality traits of the different species sheep (P < 0.05), indicating that the SNPs in CAST can be used as a molecular marker to promote the meat quality of Tan sheep. However, the same polymorphic site may have different effects on meat quality in different parts; the results still need further verification.

In addition, we also found that several SNPs in GH and GHR have statistical significance. As the receptor and ligand exert biological functions, their importance is unquestionable. As important regulators of mammalian growth and metabolism, GH and GHR can regulate the expression of many genes by means of endocrine and nervous system conduction pathways to stimulate tissue metabolism, thereby promoting cell proliferation, bone growth, and protein synthesis (Komisarek et al. 2011). A lot of research proves GH and GHR may be the major genes affecting the important economic traits of livestock or the genes linked to the main gene.

Conclusion

In the research, we explored the different association between Tan sheep and Hu sheep with growth and meat quality gene, and found that several SNPs in H-FABP, CAST, GH, and GHR exist significantly in correlation between the two kinds of sheep. The SNP69, SNP42, and SNP46 with significant statistical difference may be used as a molecular marker for breeding of Tan sheep and had certain effects on the early growth and development of Tan sheep. Our study is only a preliminary study and exist some limitations: First, the sample size is smaller. Second, the research level is relatively junior. It is necessary to further study the function of SNPs and genes in depth by combining protein level research and bioinformatics techniques.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1 (1.3MB, doc)

(DOC 1371 kb)

ESM 2 (16.3KB, xlsx)

(XLSX 15 kb)

Acknowledgments

The authors are responsible for all the content.

Funding information

This work was supported by the Local Tan Sheep Breed Project Ningxia China (No. 2013NYYZ0404). The funders had no participation in the entire process of the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

The animal ethics and welfare committee of NingXia Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences approved the experimental procedures which is in compliance with the regulations for protection of animal research.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Wei Ding, Email: renhong2014@163.com.

Yingkang Li, Email: sxgzt155@163.com.

References

  1. Arnyasi M, Grindflek E, Jávor A, et al. Investigation of two candidate genes for meat quality traits in a quantitative trait locus region on SSC6: the porcine short heterodimer partner and heart fatty acid binding protein genes. Journal of Animal Breeding & Genetics. 2006;123:198–203. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2006.00588.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bittante G, Gallo L, Carnier P et al. (1996) Effects on fertility and litter traits under accelerated lambing scheme in crossbreeding between Finnsheep and an Alpine sheep breed[J]. Small Ruminant Research23, 43–50.
  3. Cabling MM, Kang HS, Lopez BM et al. (2015) Estimation of genetic associations between production and meat quality traits in Duroc pigs[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences28, 1061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. Calvo JH, Vaiman D, Saïdi-Mehtar N, et al. Characterization, genetic variation and chromosomal assignment to sheep chromosome 2 of the ovine heart fatty acid-binding protein gene (FABP3) Cytogenetic & Genome Research. 2002;98:270. doi: 10.1159/000071047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Calvo JH, Iguácel LP, Kirinus JK, et al. A new single nucleotide polymorphism in the calpastatin ( CAST ) gene associated with beef tenderness. Meat Science. 2014;96:775–782. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.10.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Casas E, Duan Q, Schneider MJ, et al. Polymorphisms in calpastatin and mu-calpain genes are associated with beef iron content. Anim Genet. 2014;45:283. doi: 10.1111/age.12108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Cui Z, Zhang Y, Jiang Y, et al. Breeding report of Tan sheep. Part 1: The relationship of ecology and reproduction of Chinese Tan sheep. China Anim Husb Veter Med. 1962;4:1–5. [Google Scholar]
  8. Davoli R, Braglia S. Molecular approaches in pig breeding to improve meat quality. Briefings in Functional Genomics & Proteomics. 2007;6:313–321. doi: 10.1093/bfgp/elm036. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Feng X, Li F, Wang F et al. (2018) Genome-wide differential expression profiling of mRNAs and lncRNAs associated with prolificacy in Hu sheep[J]. Bioscience Reports38, BSR20171350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. Freking BA, Keele JW, Beattie CW, et al. Evaluation of the ovine callipyge locus: I. Relative chromosomal position and gene action. J Anim Sci. 1998;76:2062–2071. doi: 10.2527/1998.7682062x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chengli H, Qifa L, Yong Q (2008) Association of the H-FABP and PPARy gene expression with intramuscular fat content in Hu sheep muscles[J]. Scientia Agricultura Sinica.
  12. Haunerland NH, Spener F. Fatty acid-binding proteins--insights from genetic manipulations. Prog Lipid Res. 2004;43:328–349. doi: 10.1016/j.plipres.2004.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hovenier R, Kanis E, Verhoeven JA. Repeatability of taste panel tenderness scores and their relationships to objective pig meat quality traits. J Anim Sci. 1993;71:2018–2025. doi: 10.2527/1993.7182018x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Huang ZG, Xiong L, Zhen-Shan LIU et al. (2006) The Developmental Changes and Effect on IMF Content of H-FABP and PPARγ mRNA expression in sheep muscle[J]. Acta Genetica Sinica33, 507–514. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Jamshidi R, Kasiriyan MM, Hafezeyan H et al. (2009) Application of PCR-RFLP technique to determine BMP 15 gene polymorphism in Sangsari sheep breed of Iran[J]. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances8, 1906–1910.
  16. Kang X, Liu G, Liu Y, et al. Transcriptome profile at different physiological stages reveals potential mode for curly fleece in Chinese tan sheep. PloS one. 2013;8:e71763. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071763. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Komisarek J, Michalak A, Walendowska A. The effects of polymorphisms in DGAT1, GH and GHR genes on reproduction and production traits in Jersey cows. Animal Science Papers & Reports. 2011;29:29–36. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kretchmar DH, Koohmaraie M, Mersmann HJ. Comparison of proteolytic variables in a lean and obese strain of pig at the ages of 2.5 and 7 months. Lab Anim Sci. 1994;44:38. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lebret B, Ecolan P, Bonhomme N et al. (2015) Influence of production system in local and conventional pig breeds on stress indicators at slaughter, muscle and meat traits and pork eating quality[J]. Animal9, 1404–1413. [DOI] [PubMed]
  20. Lefaucheur L. A second look into fibre typing – Relation to meat quality. Meat Science. 2010;84:257–270. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.05.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lv YJ, Wang YJ, Chen YR et al. (2009), Study on requirements for digestible energy and metabolic energy of Tan-sheep lambs at 3-30 dayage[J]. Journal of Northwest A & F University-Natural Science Edition37, 71–75.
  22. Murachi T. Intracellular regulatory system involving calpain and calpastatin. Biochem Int. 1989;18:263–294. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ranjbari M, Hashemi A, Mardani K, et al. Allelic polymorphism of Makoei sheep calpastatin gene identified by polymerase chain reaction and single strand conformation polymorphism. Physical Review C. 2012;10:17903–17906. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ropka-Molik K, Bereta A, Tyra M, et al. Association of calpastatin gene polymorphisms and meat quality traits in pig. Meat Science. 2014;97:143–150. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.01.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sahin A, Yıldırım İ, Deniz A (2014) A comparative study on urban and rural households preferences of fresh mutton meat consumption (a case study in eastern region of Turkey-Heckman Model)[J]. British Food Journal116, 1897–1908.
  26. Schaap FG, Binas B, Danneberg H, et al. Impaired long-chain fatty acid utilization by cardiac myocytes isolated from mice lacking the heart-type fatty acid binding protein gene. Circulation Research. 1999;85:329–337. doi: 10.1161/01.RES.85.4.329. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Tao J, Zhou H, Yang Z, et al. Variation in the KAP8-2 gene affects wool crimp and growth in Chinese Tan sheep. Small Ruminant Research. 2017;149:77–80. doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2017.01.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Trembizki E, Smith H, Lahra MM, et al. High-throughput informative single nucleotide polymorphism-based typing of Neisseria gonorrhoeae using the Sequenom MassARRAY iPLEX platform. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2014;69:1526–1532. doi: 10.1093/jac/dkt544. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Won S, Jung J, Park E et al. (2018) Identification of genes related to intramuscular fat content of pigs using genome-wide association study[J]. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences31, 157. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. XC X, BB L, X W, et al. Differential expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor γ, fatty acid synthase, and hormone-sensitive lipase in fat-tailed and thin-tailed sheep breeds. Genetics\s&\smolecular Research:gmr. 2015;14:15624. doi: 10.4238/2015.December.1.14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Xiong Z, Sun DW, Pu H et al. (2017) Applications of emerging imaging techniques for meat quality and safety detection and evaluation: A review[J]. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 57, 755–768. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Xu L, Zhang Z, Zhou X, et al. Molecular cloning and polymorphism analysis of the prion protein gene in Tan sheep of Ningxia, China. Gene. 2011;485:102–105. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2011.06.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Xu, Xiaochun W, et al. PPARγ, FAS, HSL mRNA and protein expression during Tan sheep fat-tail development. Electron J Biotechnol. 2015;18:122–127. doi: 10.1016/j.ejbt.2015.01.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Zhicheng D, Yanghua QU, Ce L et al. (2018) Effects of Forage Canola Mixed Silage on Slaughter Performance and Meat Quality in Hu Sheep[J]. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine 6.
  35. Zhang Y, Luo H, Liu K, et al. Antioxidant effects of liquorice (Glycyrrhiza uralensis) extract during aging of longissimus thoracis muscle in Tan sheep. Meat Science. 2015;105:38–45. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.03.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

ESM 1 (1.3MB, doc)

(DOC 1371 kb)

ESM 2 (16.3KB, xlsx)

(XLSX 15 kb)

Articles from Tropical Animal Health and Production are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES