Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Poultry Science logoLink to Poultry Science
. 2020 Mar 26;99(5):2349–2361. doi: 10.1016/j.psj.2020.01.009

Haplotype-based genome-wide association studies for carcass and growth traits in chicken

Hui Zhang ∗, Lin-Yong Shen ∗, Zi-Chun Xu ∗, Luke M Kramer †, Jia-Qiang Yu ∗, Xin-Yang Zhang ∗, Wei Na ∗, Li-Li Yang ∗, Zhi-Ping Cao ∗, Peng Luan ∗, James M Reecy †,1, Hui Li ∗,1
PMCID: PMC7597553  PMID: 32359570

Abstract

There have been several genome-wide association study (GWAS) reported for carcass, growth, and meat traits in chickens. Most of these studies have been based on single SNPs GWAS. In contrast, haplotype-based GWAS reports have been limited. In the present study, 2 Northeast Agricultural University broiler lines divergently selected for abdominal fat content (NEAUHLF) and genotyped with the chicken 60K SNP chip were used to perform a haplotype-based GWAS. The lean and fat chicken lines were selected for abdominal fat content for 11 yr. Abdominal fat weight was significantly different between the 2 lines; however, there was no difference for body weight between the lean and fat lines. A total of 132 haplotype windows were significantly associated with abdominal fat weight. These significantly associated haplotype windows were primarily located on chromosomes 2, 4, 8, 10, and 26. Seven candidate genes, including SHH, LMBR1, FGF7, IL16, PLIN1, IGF1R, and SLC16A1, were located within these associated regions. These genes may play important roles in the control of abdominal fat content. Two regions on chromosomes 3 and 10 were significantly associated with testis weight. These 2 regions were previously detected by the single SNP GWAS using this same resource population. TCF21 on chromosome 3 was identified as a potentially important candidate gene for testis growth and development based on gene expression analysis and the reported function of this gene. TCF12, which was previously detected in our SNP by SNP interaction analysis, was located in a region on chromosome 10 that was significantly associated with testis weight. Six candidate genes, including TNFRSF1B, PLOD1, NPPC, MTHFR, EPHB2, and SLC35A3, on chromosome 21 may play important roles in bone development based on the known function of these genes. In addition, several regions were significantly associated with other carcass and growth traits, but no candidate genes were identified. The results of the present study may be helpful in understanding the genetic mechanisms of carcass and growth traits in chickens.

Key words: haplotype-based genome-wide association study (GWAS), abdominal fat, testis, candidate gene

Introduction

Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) are the most common type of variant within a genome. They have been extensively used to carry out genome-wide association studies (GWAS). SNP chips have made it possible and affordable to conduct GWAS for complex traits, especially for important economic traits in livestock (Goddard et al., 2016). Therefore, many studies about the successful applications of GWAS in animal breeding and genetics have been reported, and many genes or markers for economically important traits have been identified (Goddard et al., 2016). These results not only supply a number of molecular markers that can be used in prediction/genomic selection but they can also provide important information to help explain the genetic mechanisms that underlie these traits. However, most of these GWAS were based on single SNPs. Single SNP-based GWAS is unlikely to fully capture the variations in regions surrounding the genotyped markers. Instead, haplotype-based GWAS may help to improve this defect and could detect new discoveries of important traits (Howard et al., 2017). In addition, utilization of the haplotype-based approach delivered greater power with no inflation in type I error rate for association studies. The most important process to carry out the haplotype-based GWAS is to construct phasing of the genome, which means that the haplotypes are needed to be constructed. He et al. (2011) developed an efficient approach to accelerate the phasing process and reduce the potential bias generated by unrealistic assumptions in the phasing process. Recently, haplotyped-based GWASs have been conducted and have obtained some useful results (Wu et al., 2014, Sato et al., 2016, Chen et al., 2018). In chickens, GWAS identified genetic variation that has been associated with disease (Raeesi et al., 2017), carcass (Huang et al., 2018), growth (Guo et al., 2017, Pértille et al., 2017), and meat quantitative traits (Moreira et al., 2018). However, nearly all of these GWAS reports were based on single SNP, and no haplotype associations were reported.

The aim of the present study is to identify potentially important genes for carcass and growth traits using a haplotype-based GWAS approach in 2 Northeast Agricultural University broiler lines divergently selected for abdominal fat content (NEAUHLF) for 11 yr. The results of this study may supply useful information for prediction/genomic selection in chicken breeding programs and may also provide important information to explain the genetic mechanisms that underlie carcass and growth traits in chicken.

Materials and methods

Ethics Statement

All animal work was conducted as per the guidelines for the care and use of experimental animals established by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China (Approval number: 2006–398) and was approved by the Laboratory Animal Management Committee of Northeast Agricultural University.

Experimental Populations

Two NEAUHLF were used to carry out the haplotype-based association study (Guo et al., 2011). The population used in the present study included 475 males (203 and 272 birds from the lean and fat lines, respectively) from the 11th generation of NEAUHLF (Li et al., 2013). The birds were weighed at 0, 1, 3, 5, and 7 wk of age (BW0, BW1, BW3, BW5, and BW7, respectively). At 7 wk of age, the metatarsus length (MeL), metatarsus circumference (MeC), keel length (KeL), and chest width (ChWi) were measured before slaughter as previously described (Zhang et al., 2010). Abdominal fat weight (AFW), testis weight (TeW), carcass weight (CW), heart weight (HW), liver weight (LW), spleen weight (SW), and muscular and glandular stomach weight (MGSW) were obtained after the birds were slaughtered.

SNP Genotyping

Genotyping was carried out using the chicken 60 K SNP chip (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA), which contained 57,636 SNP. After quality control, 48,034 SNP in 475 individuals located on 28 autosomal and Z chromosomes were used in the haplotype-based GWAS. The quality control of the SNP genotypes was described previously by Zhang et al. (2012).

Haplotype-Based GWAS

Haplotypes were constructed by LinkPHASE3 using pedigree information (Druet and Georges, 2015). Missing haplotypes were inferred by DAGPHASE and Beagle, which use an efficient approach based on hidden Markov models (Druet and Georges, 2010). Haplotypes were extracted using every 2 neighboring SNP. Thus, 4 kinds of haplotype (11, 12, 21, and 22) were detected. For the haplotype-based GWAS, we compared each haplotype vs. all others, which means that when haplotype 11 was specified, the individuals with 2 copies of the specified haplotype 11 had the diplotype of AA, the individuals with only one copy of the specified haplotype 11 had the diplotype of AB, and the individuals with no copy of the specified haplotype 11 had the diplotype of BB. In turn, when haplotype 12 was specified, the individuals with 2 copies of the specified haplotype 12 had the diplotype of AA, the individuals with only one copy of the specified haplotype 12 had the diplotype of AB, and the individuals with no copy of the specified haplotype 12 had the diplotype of BB, and so on. The genotype file of all individuals was generated with only 3 diplotypes, AA, AB, and BB. The haplotype-based GWAS was then conducted by Plink v1.07 using a linear regression method (Purcell et al., 2007). Family and Line were used as a 2 fix effects for all the traits to adjust the population structure's effect. BW0 was used as a covariate for BW1, BW3, BW5, and BW7. BW7 was used as a covariate for KeL, MeL, MeC, ChWi, AFW, CW, TeW, HW, LW, SW, and MGSW. A genome-wide 5% type I error after Bonferroni correction was used as the genome-wide significance level. The threshold P-value for declaring genome-wide significance was 0.05/48,005 = 1.04 × 10−6. Manhattan plots of the P-values for all haplotypes associated with carcass and growth were plotted using SNPEVG1, version 2.1 (Wang et al., 2012). Gene locations and information were mined from Ensembl chicken genome galGal3 (https://www.genome.ucsc.edu).

Haplotypes were also extracted using the sliding windows of 3 SNP, 4 SNP, and 5 SNP. The haplotype frequencies were calculated, and the major haplotype was specified, which meant that the individuals with 2 copies of the major haplotype had the diplotype of AA, the individuals with only one copy of the major haplotype had the diplotype of AB, and the individuals with no copy of the major haplotype had the diplotype of BB. Therefore, we got the genotype file of all individuals with only 3 diplotypes, AA, AB, and BB. The haplotype-based GWAS was then conducted by the method described previously.

Results and discussion

Haplotype-Based GWAS for Carcass Trait

For more than 60 yr, broiler chicken breeders have focused on the selection of important economic traits and have made dramatic genetic improvements (Hill and Dansky, 1954, Bedford and Classen, 1992, Demeure et al., 2013). However, long-term intense selection for fast juvenile growth in broiler chickens has increased their abdominal fat deposition and resulted in metabolic changes (Pym, 1987, Emmerson, 1997, Scheele, 1997, Julian, 2005). Excessive deposition of abdominal fat has negative impacts on feed efficiency and carcass quality (Demeure et al., 2013, Ramiah et al., 2014). Therefore, the detection of important genes or markers for abdominal fat content will help to select lean chicken lines. In the present study, haplotype-based GWAS for AFW are carried out to identify genes for abdominal fat content (Figure 1). There were 156 haplotype windows that were significantly associated with AFW (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1). A total of 132 haplotype windows that were significantly associated with AFW were obtained after combining overlapping windows. The SNP in these significant haplotype windows were concentrated on chromosomes 2, 4, 8, 10, and 26. The 12 regions on these chromosomes were obtained after combining windows that overlapped (Table 2). There were 70 RefGenes located in these 12 regions. Possible candidate genes for abdominal fat deposition include SHH, LMBR1, FGF7, IL16, PLIN1, IGF1R, and SLC16A1. These genes contained a haplotype window or located near a haplotype window with significant effects on AFW (Table 3). Individuals with the major haplotype (Hap1) had significantly lower or higher AFW than the individuals with the other haplotypes (Hap2, Figure 2). These results indicated that SHH, LMBR1, FGF7, IL16, PLIN1, IGF1R, and SLC16A1 are good candidate genes for abdominal fat deposition. SHH (sonic hedgehog) is an obesity susceptibility gene in humans (Wu et al., 2017). This gene can reduce lipid accumulation in adipocytes and decrease the expression of the adipocyte-specific gene (Fontaine et al., 2008). LMBR1 is the limb development membrane protein 1, and the SNP in this gene was significantly associated with obesity in humans (Wu et al., 2017). FGF7 is the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) 7, and the protein encoded by this gene is a member of the FGF family. Most FGF family members could promote the proliferation and differentiation of human preadipocytes by activating a family of receptor tyrosine kinases (Patel et al., 2005). FGF7 was identified as a target of miR-143 in murine adipogenesis and it was plausible that the overexpression of miR-143 could promote adipogenesis by inhibiting its target FGF7 (He et al., 2013). A functional SNP in IL6 gene was strongly associated with waist circumference in a large Dutch study population, which indicated that IL6 may contribute to obesity in humans (van den Berg et al., 2009). Perilipin (PLIN1) is a lipid droplet coat protein that belongs to the lipid droplet–related protein family. Genetic variation in PLIN1 has been significantly associated with adiposity in human (Ruiz et al., 2011), pig (Gandolfi et al., 2011), cattle (Fan et al., 2010), sheep (Gao et al., 2012), duck (Zhang et al., 2013), and chicken (Zhou et al., 2014, Zhang et al., 2015). In mice, knockout of insulin and/or IGF1 receptors (IR/IGF1R) was accompanied by a rapid loss of white and brown fat because of the increased lipolysis and adipocyte apoptosis (Sakaguchi et al., 2017). SLC16A1 is the solute carrier family 16 member 1, which is also known as monocarboxylate transporter 1 (MCT1). MCT1 is abundant in several tissues, including adipose, gut, brain, heart, muscle, liver, and kidney (Hajduch et al., 2000, Pierre and Pellerin, 2005, Iwanaga et al., 2006). It is also a carrier of short-chain fatty acids, ketone bodies, and lactate in several tissues, and MCT1+/− mice displayed resistance to development of diet-induced obesity when fed with high fat diet (HFD) (Lengacher et al., 2013).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Results of haplotype-based genome-wide association studies using PLINK for abdominal fat weight (AFW). The results are presented as Manhattan plots based on haplotype 11-specified, 12-specified, 21-specified, and 22-specified, respectively. The solid line indicates the Bonferroni threshold for multiple test correction with a type I error of 5% (P-value <1.04 × 10−6).

Table 1.

Number of haplotype windows with significant effects on each carcass and growth traits in chicken.

Traits No. of significant windows
11-Specified 12-Specified 21-Specified 22-Specified Total
AFW 41 40 50 41 132
BW1 3 2 3 1 9
BW3 4 8 6 3 18
BW5 4 4 7 6 21
BW7 1 2 2 1 6
ChWi 5 3 4 3 14
CW 0 1 1 0 2
HW 1 1 1 0 3
KeL 11 6 9 6 32
LW 0 1 2 0 3
MeC 24 33 35 30 110
MeL 1 2 1 2 6
MGSW 2 0 0 2 4
SW 0 0 0 0 0
TeW 34 33 35 31 123
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: AFW, abdominal fat weight; ChWi, chest width; CW, carcass weight; HW, heart weight; KeL, keel length; LW, liver weight; MeC, metatarsus circumference; MeL, metatarsus length; MGSW, muscular and glandular stomach weight; SW, spleen weight; TeW, testis weight.

Table 2.

Important chromosome regions for carcass and growth traits.

Chromosome Start_SNP Rs# Start_position End_SNP Rs# End_position Length Traits Genes in the region
2 GGaluGA132691 rs313439121 7896784 Gga_rs15060839 rs15060839 8567871 671,087 AFW SHH, LMBR1, MNX1, UBE3C
2 Gga_rs14219117 rs14219117 93185343 Gga_rs14219515 rs14219515 93732330 546,987 AFW /
2 GGaluGA158673 rs312677797 96017288 GGaluGA159074 rs317155927 98822750 2,805,462 AFW RTTN, MIR1681, TMX3, CDH19, CDH7, MC2R
2 GGaluGA159507 rs315053861 100327421 Gga_rs14224613 rs14224613 100387035 59,614 AFW /
2 Gga_rs13803296 rs13803296 102079036 GGaluGA160440 rs314547993 103996355 1,917,319 AFW LAMA1, ZBTB14, AKAIN1, TGIF1, MYL12A
2 Gga_rs16142136 rs16142136 139745278 Gga_rs16141958 rs16141958 140089369 344,091 AFW /
4 Gga_rs14436487 rs14436487 21729261 Gga_rs14436961 rs14436961 22258381 529,120 AFW CTSO
8 Gga_rs15906323 rs15906323 8094782 GGaluGA325809 rs431896935 9028904 934,122 AFW FAM129A
8 Gga_rs14642420 rs14642420 14253680 Gga_rs14642444 rs14642444 14296548 42,868 AFW ABCD3, ARHGAP29
10 GGaluGA069041 rs317193761 12108078 Gga_rs14008746 rs14008746 14892303 2,784,225 AFW FGF7, MIR147-1, SLC30A4, BLOC1S6, ITGB1BP3, MIR6596, TRPM7, SPPL2A, GABPB1, HDC, GATM, SCARNA15, FAM103A1, BTBD1, TM6SF1, SH3GL3, EFL1, TMC3, IL16, MESD, ABHD17C, FAH, ZFAND6, BCL2A1, MTHFS, KIAA1024, PLIN1, TICRR, RHCG, FANCI, RLBP1, MFGE8, ACAN, MRPS11, MRPL46, MIR1720, MIR7-2, MIR3529
10 Gga_rs15587351 rs15587351 17309049 Gga_rs14011820 rs14011820 18758907 1,449,858 AFW NR2F2, MIR1680, MIR1813-2, IGF1R
26 GGaluGA196948 rs314806696 3156806 Gga_rs16203115 rs16203115 3520068 363,262 AFW KCND3, WNT2B, ST7L, CAPZA1, RHOC, MOV10, SLC16A1, MIR1669, MAGI3
1 Gga_rs13895421 rs13895421 88063956 GGaluGA029830 rs312695192 88670466 606,510 MeC TBC1D23, TMEM45A, IMPG2, TXNL4B, PCNP
1 GGaluGA031230 rs312759219 92236963 Gga_rs14857266 rs14857266 93018416 781,453 MeC EPHA3
2 Gga_rs13669384 rs13669384 37647772 Gga_rs14165766 rs14165766 37653833 6,061 MeC RARB
2 GGaluGA160608 rs318119261 104397754 Gga_rs13794375 rs13794375 104627805 230,051 MeC /
2 GGaluGA162581 rs431838007 110512137 Gga_rs14232072 rs14232072 111387888 875,751 MeC MAPRE2, PRKDC, UBE2V2
2 Gga_rs16149569 rs16149569 148367666 GGaluGA173055 rs315266923 150658423 2,290,757 MeC COL22A1
4 Gga_rs16404447 rs16404447 49102957 Gga_rs14727013 rs14727013 49961124 858167 MeC MIR1730
6 Gga_rs14593228 rs14593228 32615659 GGaluGA305949 rs312809174 33367322 751,663 MeC IKZF5, ACADSB, HMX3, BUB3
7 GGaluGA314140 rs315499140 18350464 GGaluGA314144 rs314108745 18364373 13,909 MeC SP3
7 Gga_rs15862567 rs15862567 24373718 GGaluGA316074 rs312654261 24647515 273,797 MeC /
8 Gga_rs13663151 rs13663151 7859868 GGaluGA325359 rs316684405 7906123 46,255 MeC /
8 Gga_rs15910167 rs15910167 10137424 Gga_rs14641638 rs14641638 12972931 2,835,507 MeC C8H1orf27, AMY1AP, AMY1A, MIR6561, MIR1610, SLC30A7, CDC14A, MFSD14A, SLC35A3, DBT, SASS6, PALMD
21 GGaluGA184599 rs316833978 4781321 Gga_rs15185019 rs15185019 6176965 1,395,644 MeC MINOS1, NBL1, HTR6, PLA2G2E, PLA2G5, UBXN10, PLA2G2A, DDX19B, DNAJC16, CDA, AGMAT, CTRC, C1orf158, DHRS3, TNFRSF1B, TNFRSF8, PLOD1, CELA2A, NPPC, MTHFR, RNP, NPPA, CLCN6, DRAXIN, MAD2L2, DISP3, GUCA2A, EPHB2
Z Gga_rs14689552 rs14689552 6673737 Gga_rs14783328 rs14783328 7291085 617,348 MeC UBE2R2, LOC407092, IFNW1, IFNA3, DCAF12
Z Gga_rs16129856 rs16129856 9391651 Gga_rs14785793 rs14785793 10575355 1,183,704 MeC TARS, SLC45A2, AMACR, BRIX1, MIR6613, PRLR, IL7R, LMBRD2, SKP2
1 GGaluGA043278 rs315095993 131588419 Gga_rs13936329 rs13936329 131711376 122,957 TeW /
2 Gga_rs13534898 rs13534898 4517713 GGaluGA131254 rs314054036 4866215 348,502 TeW ACAA1, MAPKKK3L, MYD88, MIR6610
2 Gga_rs14240062 rs14240062 121959284 Gga_rs14241677 rs14241677 123386087 1,426,803 TeW TRPA1, MIR1796, TERF1, RPL7, RDH10, STAU2, UBE2W, ELOC, TMEM70, PI15, CRISPLD1
2 Gga_rs14245700 rs14245700 127443603 Gga_rs13730959 rs13730959 127499632 56,029 TeW CA3A
3 GGaluGA222074 rs317102159 53276944 Gga_rs10729720 rs10729720 67517313 14,240,369 TeW GTF2H5, EZR, ADGRG6, CITED2, TXLNB, ABRACL, REPS1, MIR7462, PERP2, PERP1, IFNGR1, MIR6568, PEX7, MAP7, MYB, SGK1, TBPL1, TCF21, EYA4, RPS12, MIR1454, SLC18B1, VNN1, STX7, MOXD1, CTGF, MIR6582, MIR6697, MIR1660, ECHDC1, RSPO3, CENPW, TRMT11, NCOA7, TPD52L1, HDDC2, NKAIN2, FABP7, PKIB, SERINC1, HSF2, GJA1, MCM9, ASF1A, PLN, MIR199B, ROS1, VGLL2, SOT3A1L, RWDD1, FAM26E, HDAC2, MARCKS
10 Gga_rs14002765 rs14002765 5962967 Gga_rs14003104 rs14003104 6635581 672,614 TeW RORA, ANXA2, GTF2A2
10 Gga_rs14695763 rs14695763 8460335 Gga_rs14722408 rs14722408 13180860 4,720,525 TeW TCF12, PRTG, PYGO1, DYX1C1, CCPG1, PIGBOS1 RAB27A, RSL24D1, FAM214A, ARPP19, MYO5A, GNB5, BCL2L10, MAPK6, LYSMD2, LEO1, TMOD3, LYSMD2, SCG3, CYP19A1, MIR1744, SLC24A5, MYEF2, DUT, COPS2, GALK2, FGF7, MIR147-1, BLOC1S6, ITGB1BP3, MIR6596, GABPB1, TRPM7,GABPB1, HDC, GATM, SCARNA15, FAM103A1, FAM103A1, TM6SF1, BTBD1, SH3GL3
11 GGaluGA074107 rs312924990 1035483 Gga_rs14958653 rs14958653 1864531 829,048 TeW CTCF, LOC415664, LOC415664, LOC769668, LOC107080643, LOC415662, AARS, MIR1616, FHOD1, ATP6V0D1, AGRP, SETD6, CNOT1, GOT2, CALB2, HYDIN, VAC14, COG4, ST3GAL2, GLG1
Open in a new tab

Table 3.

Candidate genes for AFW, TeW, and MeC identified from the haplotype-based GWAS results.

Genes Haplotype window Near or contained the haplotype window Chromosome Major haplotype Trait
SHH WIN7856 Near 2 21 AFW
LMBR1 WIN7879 Near 2 12 AFW
FGF7 WIN30447 Near 10 22 AFW
IL16 WIN30558 Near 10 11 AFW
PLIN1 WIN30605 Near 10 12 AFW
IGF1R WIN30893 Contained 10 22 AFW
SLC16A1 WIN44687 Near 26 12 AFW
TCF21 WIN15421 Near 3 11 TeW
TCF12 WIN30233 and WIN30234 Contained 10 212 TeW
SLC35A3 WIN27613 Contained 8 12 MeC
TNFRSF1B WIN42161 Near 21 22 MeC
PLOD1
NPPC WIN42177 Near 21 12 MeC
MTHFR
EPHB2 WIN42231 and WIN42234 Contained 21 1,212 MeC
Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: AFW, abdominal fat weight; GWAS; genome-wide association study; MeC, metatarsus circumference; TeW, testis weight

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

The difference of abdominal fat weight (AFW) between the individuals with the major haplotype (Hap1) and the individuals with other haplotypes (Hap2) (t-test). Different alphabets means extremely significantly different (P < 0.01) and the error bar is the standard deviation (SD).

Manhattan plots of haplotype-based GWAS for TeW are shown in Figure 3. A total of 133 haplotype windows significantly associated with TeW were identified (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1). These significant windows for TeW were mainly distributed on chromosomes 3 and 10. The haplotype windows with a significant effect on TeW on chromosome 3 were concentrated on a 14 Mb region from 53.28 Mb to 67.52 Mb. The significant haplotype windows for TeW on chromosome 10 were concentrated on the 4.72 Mb region from 8.46 Mb to 13.18 Mb. These 2 regions on chromosome 3 and 10 are same as previously detected by the single SNP GWAS (Zhang et al., 2017a). In these 2 regions, 2 transcription factors, including TCF21 and TCF12, were detected as important genes for testis growth and development based on our previous studies (Zhang et al., 2017a, Zhang et al., 2017b). TCF21 gene was located near a haplotype window (WIN15421) that was significantly associated with TeW (Table 3). Individuals with the major haplotype 11 (Hap1) had significantly lower TeW than individuals with the others haplotypes (Hap2) (Figure 4). Previously reported gene expression analysis indicated that TCF21 was differently expressed between lean and fat birds and that its expression level was significantly associated with TeW and TeP (Zhang et al., 2017a). In humans and mice, TCF21 plays important roles in hypertension, gastric cancer, and coronary heart disease (Miller et al., 2014, Fujimaki et al., 2015, Yang et al., 2015). In mice, TCF21 is the first direct downstream target gene of the male sex–determining factor (SRY) (Bhandari et al., 2011, Bhandari et al., 2012). The knockout of TCF21 in mice resulted in male-to-female sex reversal (Cui et al., 2004). SRY could bind to the TCF21 promoter and activate gene expression (Bhandari et al., 2012). In rats, TCF21 and SRY have similar effects on Sertoli cell differentiation and embryonic testis development (Bhandari et al., 2012). Taken together, these results indicated that TCF21 may play an important role in sex differentiation and testis development. TCF12 was located within 2 consecutive haplotype windows (WIN30233 and WIN30234) that were significantly associated with TeW (Table 3). The 3 SNP that constituted these 2 haplotypes were used to construct 3 SNP haplotypes. Individuals with the major haplotype 212 (Hap1) had significantly higher TeW than the individuals with others haplotypes (Hap2) (Figure 4). TCF12 was in the same family as TCF21, which was also identified in the region for TeW on chromosome 10. In our previous study, TCF12 was detected as the important gene for testis growth and development from the SNP by SNP interaction analysis (Zhang et al., 2017b).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Results of haplotype-based genome-wide association studies using PLINK for testis weight (TeW). The results are presented as Manhattan plots based on haplotype 11-specified, 12-specified, 21-specified, and 22-specified, respectively. The solid line indicates the Bonferroni threshold for multiple test correction with a type I error of 5% (P-value <1.04 × 10−6).

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

The difference of testis weight (TeW) between the individuals with the major haplotype. (Hap1) and the individuals with other haplotypes (Hap2) of TCF21 and TCF12 genes (t-test). ∗means significantly different (P < 0.05) and the error bar is the standard deviation (SD).

For TeW, a single SNP-based GWAS was carried out, previously (Zhang et al., 2017a). The haplotype-based GWAS results were compared with the single SNP-based GWAS, and we found that haplotype-based GWAS identified all significant regions detected by single SNP-based GWAS for TeW. Furthermore, haplotype-based GWAS detected more significant regions for TeW than single SNP-based GWAS. Such significant regions on chromosomes 1 and 11 for TeW in the present study (Table 2) were not detected by single SNP-based GWAS as previously reported (Zhang et al., 2017a). Therefore, from these results we could conclude that the haplotype-based GWAS is a good supplement for single SNP-based GWAS.

For CW, HW, LW, SW, and MGSW, only a couple of haplotypes were significantly associated. Unfortunately, no interesting candidate genes were detected for these carcass traits (Table 1, Supplementary Table 1, and Supplementary Figure 1).

Haplotype-Based GWAS for Growth Trait

Manhattan plots of haplotype-based GWAS for MeC are shown in Figure 5. There were 122 haplotype windows that were significantly associated with MeC (Table 1 and Supplementary Table 1). A total of 110 haploytpe windows were obtained after deleting the overlapped windows. Most of these significant haploptypes were distributed on chromosomes 1, 2, 8, 21, and Z. There were 66 RefGenes located in these regions, and possible candidate genes for bone traits include TNFRSF1B, PLOD1, NPPC, MTHFR, EPHB2, and SLC35A3. These genes were contained within or near a haplotype window that was significantly associated with MeC (Table 3). For each gene, individuals with the major haplotype (Hap1) had significantly lower (or higher) MeC than the individuals with the other haplotypes (Hap2, Figure 6). EPHB2 spanned 2 haplotype windows (WIN42231 and WIN42234). These 4 SNP that constituted these 2 windows were used to construct 4 SNP haplotypes. Individuals with the major haplotype 1212 (Hap1) had significantly lower MeC than the individuals with the other haplotypes (Hap2) (Figure 6C). These results indicated that TNFRSF1B, PLOD1, NPPC, MTHFR, EPHB2, and SLC35A3 are important for bone development. TNFRSF1B is a TNF receptor superfamily member, which could regulate the effects of TNF on osteoclastogenesis (Abu-Amer et al., 2000). The SNP in TNFRSF1B could contribute to the genetic regulation of bone mass (Albagha et al., 2002). PLOD1 is procollagen-lysine, 2-oxoglutarate 5-dioxygenase 1. Variants within this gene have been associated with bone mineral density (BMD) in humans (Spotila et al., 2003, Huang et al., 2009). NPPC is C-type natriuretic peptide 3, which is also known as CNP. Mice that overexpress CNP have longer bones (Chusho et al., 2001). CNP could stimulate chondrocyte proliferation and increase the size of individual hypertrophic chondrocytes (Yasoda et al., 1998, Mericq et al., 2000). CNP has been implicated in the regulation of skeletal growth in transgenic and knockout mice (Bartels et al., 2004). MTHFR is methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase, which catalyzes the conversion of 5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate to 5-methyltetrahydrofolate, a cosubstrate for homocysteine remethylation to methionine. Variants within this gene have been associated with BMD (Li et al., 2016). EPHB2 is EPH receptor B2. The GWAS meta-analysis of lumbar spine volumetric BMD measured by quantitative computed tomography was carried out and several loci were identified, including rs12742784 within EPHB2, which was associated with higher volumetric BMD and decreased risk of clinical vertebral fracture (Nielson et al., 2016). This noncoding SNP has been associated with increased EPHB2 mRNA expression levels in human bone biopsies (Nielson et al., 2016). The basic function of SLC35A3 is as a UDP-GlcNAc transporter. It has been shown to be expressed in all human tissues examined, including mesodermal derived tissues, skeletal muscle, and bone marrow (Ishida et al., 1999). A missense mutation in SLC35A3 gene has been associated with complex vertebral malformations in bovine and revealed a new mechanism for malformation of the vertebral column caused by abnormal nucleotide sugar transport into the Golgi apparatus (Thomsen et al., 2006). Some other studies have also identified SLC35A3 as having an important role in vertebral malformations (Ghebranious et al., 2006, Ruść and Kamiński, 2007, Chu et al., 2008, Ghanem et al., 2008, Ghanem et al., 2009, Wang et al., 2011).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Results of haplotype-based genome-wide association studies using PLINK for metatarsus circumference (MeC). The results are presented as Manhattan plots based on haplotype 11- specified, 12-specified, 21-specified, and 22-specified, respectively. The solid line indicates the Bonferroni threshold for multiple test correction with a type I error of 5% (P-value <1.04 × 10−6).

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

The difference of metatarsus circumference (MeC) between the individuals with the major. haplotype (Hap1) and the individuals with other haplotypes (Hap2) (t-test). ∗∗means extremely significantly different (P < 0.01) and the error bar is the standard deviation (SD).

For BW1, BW3, BW5, BW7, ChWi, KeL, and MeL, only a couple of haplotype windows were significantly associated with these traits. No potential candidate genes were detected for these growth traits (Table 1, Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Figure 1).

Haplotype-Based GWAS Using Sliding Window of 3 SNP, 4 SNP, and 5 SNP

The GWAS results for carcass and growth traits aforementioned were all based on haplotypes extracted from sliding windows of 2 neighbor SNP. We also constructed haplotypes using 3 SNP in a sliding window, 4 SNP in a sliding window, and 5 SNP in a sliding window. Accordingly, haplotypes-based GWAS were carried out using 3-SNP, 4-SNP and 5-SNP sliding windows, respectively. Manhattan plots of 3-SNP, 4-SNP, and 5-SNP windows for carcass and growth traits are shown in Supplementary Figure 2. These results are similar as the results of 2-SNP window described previously.

In summary, the present study successfully used the haplotype-based GWAS method to detect important chromosome regions that harbor genes associated with carcass and growth traits in chicken. SHH, LMBR1, FGF7, IL16, PLIN1, IGF1R, and SLC16A1 were identified as potential candidate genes for abdominal fat deposition. TCF21 and TCF12, which were also previously detected by single SNP GWAS and epistatic effect analysis, were detected as important candidate genes for testis growth and development. TNFRSF1B, PLOD1, NPPC, MTHFR, EPHB2, and SLC35A3 were potentially important genes for bone development. Only a couple of regions were detected as significantly associated with other carcass and growth traits. The results of this study may be helpful for exploring the metabolic mechanisms of fat deposition and testis growth in chicken.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National 863 Project of China (No. 2013AA102501), the National Natural Science Foundation (No. 31972549), China Agriculture Research System (No. CARS-41), the project supported by Heilongjiang Human Resources And Social Security Bureau (No. 2017QD0011), and “Academic Backbone” Project of Northeast Agricultural University (No. 17XG18). The authors would like to acknowledge the members of the Poultry Breeding Group of the College of Animal Science and Technology at the Northeast Agricultural University for managing the birds and collecting the data.

Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors did not provide a conflict of interest statement.

Footnotes

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2020.01.009

Contributor Information

James M. Reecy, Email: jreecy@iastate.edu.

Hui Li, Email: lihui@neau.edu.cn.

Supplementary data

Supplementary Table 1
mmc1.xlsx (33.6KB, xlsx)
Supplementary Figure 1

Manhattan plots of 2-SNP sliding window for carcass and growth traits. The results are presented as Manhattan plots based on haplotype 11-specified, 12-specified, 21- specified and 22-specified, respectively. The solid line indicates the Bonferroni threshold for 606 multiple test correction with a type I error of 5% (P-value <1.04 × 10−6).

mmc2.pdf (4.1MB, pdf)
Supplementary Figure 2

Manhattan plots of 3-SNP, 4-SNP and 5-SNP sliding window for carcass and growth traits. The solid line indicates the Bonferroni threshold for multiple test correction with 609 a type I error of 5% (P-value <1.04 × 10−6).

mmc3.pdf (1,016KB, pdf)

References

  1. Abu-Amer Y., Erdmann J., Alexopoulou L., Kollias G., Ross F.P., Teitelbaum S.L. Tumor necrosis factor receptors types 1 and 2 differentially regulate osteoclastogenesis. J. Biol. Chem. 2000;275:27307–27310. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M003886200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Albagha O.M., Tasker P.N., McGuigan F.E., Reid D.M., Ralston S.H. Linkage disequilibrium between polymorphisms in the human TNFRSF1B gene and their association with bone mass in perimenopausal women. Hum. Mol. Genet. 2002;11:2289–2295. doi: 10.1093/hmg/11.19.2289. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartels C.F., Bükülmez H., Padayatti P., Rhee D.K., van Ravenswaaij-Arts C., Pauli R.M., Mundlos S., Chitayat D., Shih L.Y., Al-Gazali L.I., Kant S., Cole T., Morton J., Cormier-Daire V., Faivre L., Lees M., Kirk J., Mortier G.R., Leroy J., Zabel B., Kim C.A., Crow Y., Braverman N.E., van den Akker F., Warman M.L. Mutations in the transmembrane natriuretic peptide receptor NPR-B impair skeletal growth and cause acromesomelic dysplasia, type Maroteaux. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2004;75:27–34. doi: 10.1086/422013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bedford M.R., Classen H.L. Reduction of intestinal viscosity through manipulation of dietary rye and pentosanase concentration is effected through changes in the carbohydrate composition of the intestinal aqueous phase and results in improved growth rate and food conversion efficiency of broiler chicks. J. Nutr. 1992;122:560–569. doi: 10.1093/jn/122.3.560. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhandari R.K., Sadler-Riggleman I., Clement T.M., Skinner M.K. Basic helix- 308 loop-helix transcription factor TCF21 is a downstream target of the male sex determining gene SRY. PLoS One. 2011;6:e19935. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019935. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bhandari R.K., Haque M.M., Skinner M.K. Global genome analysis of the downstream binding targets of testis determining factor SRY and SOX9. PLoS One. 2012;7:e43380. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Chen Z., Yao Y., Ma P., Wang Q., Pan Y. Haplotype-based genome-wide association study identifies loci and candidate genes for milk yield in Holsteins. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0192695. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192695. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chu Q., Sun D., Yu Y., Zhang Y., Zhang Y. Identification of complex vertebral malformation carriers in Chinese Holstein. J. Vet. Diagn. Invest. 2008;20:228–230. doi: 10.1177/104063870802000215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chusho H., Tamura N., Ogawa Y., Yasoda A., Suda M., Miyazawa T., Nakamura K., Nakao K., Kurihara T., Komatsu Y., Itoh H., Tanaka K., Saito Y., Katsuki M., Nakao K. Dwarfism and early death in mice lacking C-type natriuretic peptide. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2001;98:4016–4021. doi: 10.1073/pnas.071389098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cui S., Ross A., Stallings N., Parker K.L., Capel B., Quaggin S.E. Disrupted gonadogenesis and male-to-female sex reversal in Pod1 knockout mice. Development. 2004;131:4095–4105. doi: 10.1242/dev.01266. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Demeure O., Duclos M.J., Bacciu N., Le Mignon G., Filangi O., Pitel F., Boland A., Lagarrigue S., Cogburn L.A., Simon J., Le Roy P., Le Bihan-Duval E. Genome- wide interval mapping using SNPs identifies new QTL for growth, body composition and several physiological variables in an F2 intercross between fat and lean chicken lines. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2013;45:36. doi: 10.1186/1297-9686-45-36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Druet T., Georges M. A hidden markov model combining linkage and linkage disequilibrium information for haplotype reconstruction and quantitative trait locus fine mapping. Genetics. 2010;184:789–798. doi: 10.1534/genetics.109.108431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Druet T., Georges M. LINKPHASE3: an improved pedigree-based phasing algorithm robust to genotyping and map errors. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:1677–1679. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu859. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Emmerson D.A. Commercial approaches to genetic selection for growth and feed conversion in domestic poultry. Poult. Sci. 1997;76:1121–1125. doi: 10.1093/ps/76.8.1121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fan Y., Zan L., Wang H., Yang Y. Study on the relationship between polymorphism of plin gene and carcass and meat quality traits in Qinchuan cattle. Chin. J. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2010;41:268–273. [Google Scholar]
  16. Fontaine C., Cousin W., Plaisant M., Dani C., Peraldi P. Hedgehog signaling alters adipocyte maturation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Stem Cells. 2008;26:1037–1046. doi: 10.1634/stemcells.2007-0974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fujimaki T., Oguri M., Horibe H., Kato K., Matsuoka R., Abe S., Tokoro F., Arai M., Noda T., Watanabe S., Yamada Y. Association of a transcription factor 21 gene polymorphism with hypertension. Biomed. Rep. 2015;3:118–122. doi: 10.3892/br.2014.371. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gandolfi G., Mazzoni M., Zambonelli P., Lalatta-Costerbosa G., Tronca A., Russo V., Davoli R. Perilipin 1 and perilipin 2 protein localization and gene expression study in skeletal muscles of European cross-breed pigs with different intramuscular fat contents. Meat Sci. 2011;88:631–637. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.02.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gao Z.Y., Lin P.P., Yuan Y.N., Zhou S.S., Liu B.F., Liu J.H., Liang C., Qiao L.Y., Liu W.Z. Study on the polymorphism of plin gene and its association with tail and slaughter traits in sheep. J. Shanxi Agric. Univ. 2012;32:158–164. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ghanem M.E., Akita M., Suzuki T., Kasuga A., Nishibori M. Complex vertebral malformation in Holstein cows in Japan and its inheritance to crossbred F1 generation. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2008;103:348–354. doi: 10.1016/j.anireprosci.2007.05.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ghanem M.E., Suzuki T., Akita M., Nishibori M. Neospora caninum and complex vertebral malformation as possible causes of bovine fetal mummification. Can. Vet. J. 2009;50:389–392. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ghebranious N., Burmester J.K., Glurich I., McPherson E., Ivacic L., Kislow J., Rasmussen K., Kumar V., Raggio C.L., Blank R.D., Jacobsen F.S., Faciszewski T., Womack J., Giampietro P.F. Evaluation of SLC35A3 as a candidate gene for human vertebral malformations. Am. J. Med. Genet. A. 2006;140:1346–1348. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.31307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Goddard M.E., Kemper K.E., MacLeod I.M., Chamberlain A.J., Hayes B.J. Genetics of complex traits: prediction of phenotype, identification of causal polymorphisms and genetic architecture. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2016;283:20160569. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.0569. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Guo L., Sun B., Shang Z., Leng L., Wang Y., Wang N., Li H. Comparison of adipose tissue cellularity in chicken lines divergently selected for fatness. Poult. Sci. 2011;90:2024–2034. doi: 10.3382/ps.2010-00863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Guo J., Sun C., Qu L., Shen M., Dou T., Ma M., Wang K., Yang N. Genetic architecture of bone quality variation in layer chickens revealed by a genome-wide association study. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:45317. doi: 10.1038/srep45317. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Hajduch E., Heyes R.R., Watt P.W., Hundal H.S. Lactate transport in rat adipocytes: identification of monocarboxylate transporter 1 (MCT1) and its modulation during streptozotocin-induced diabetes. FEBS Lett. 2000;479:89–92. doi: 10.1016/s0014-5793(00)01889-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. He Y., Li C., Amos C.I., Xiong M., Ling H., Jin L. Accelerating haplotype-based genome-wide association study using perfect phylogeny and phase-known reference data. PLoS One. 2011;6:e22097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. He Z., Yu J., Zhou C., Ren G., Cong P., Mo D., Chen Y., Liu X. MiR-143 is not essential for adipose development as revealed by in vivo antisense targeting. Biotechnol. Lett. 2013;35:499–507. doi: 10.1007/s10529-012-1112-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hill F.W., Dansky L.M. Studies of the energy requirements of chickens 1. The effect of dietary energy level on growth and feed consumption. Poult. Sci. 1954;33:112–119. [Google Scholar]
  30. Howard D.M., Hall L.S., Hafferty J.D., Zeng Y., Adams M.J., Clarke T.K., Porteous D.J., Nagy R., Hayward C., Smith B.H., Murray A.D., Ryan N.M., Evans K.L., Haley C.S., Deary I.J., Thomson P.A., McIntosh A.M. Genome-wide haplotype-based association analysis of major depressive disorder in Generation Scotland and UK Biobank. Transl. Psychiatry. 2017;7:1263. doi: 10.1038/s41398-017-0010-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Huang Q.Y., Li G.H., Kung A.W. Multiple osteoporosis susceptibility genes on chromosome 1p36 in Chinese. Bone. 2009;44:984–988. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2009.01.368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Huang S., He Y., Ye S., Wang J., Yuan X., Zhang H., Li J., Zhang X., Zhang Z. Genome-wide association study on chicken carcass traits using sequence data imputed from SNP array. J. Appl. Genet. 2018;59:335–344. doi: 10.1007/s13353-018-0448-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ishida N., Yoshioka S., Chiba Y., Takeuchi M., Kawakita M. Molecular cloning and functional expression of the human Golgi UDP-N-acetylglucosamine transporter. J. Biochem. 1999;126:68–77. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jbchem.a022437. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Iwanaga T., Takebe K., Kato I., Karaki S., Kuwahara A. Cellular expression of monocarboxylate transporters (MCT) in the digestive tract of the mouse, rat, and humans, with special reference to slc5a8. Biomed. Res. 2006;27:243–254. doi: 10.2220/biomedres.27.243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Julian R.J. Production and growth related disorders and other metabolic diseases of poultry--a review. Vet. J. 2005;169:350–369. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2004.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lengacher S., Nehiri-Sitayeb T., Steiner N., Carneiro L., Favrod C., Preitner F., Thorens B., Stehle J.C., Dix L., Pralong F., Magistretti P.J., Pellerin L. Resistance to diet-induced obesity and associated metabolic perturbations in haploinsufficient monocarboxylate transporter 1 mice. PLoS One. 2013;8:e82505. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082505. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Li F., Hu G., Zhang H., Wang S., Wang Z., Li H. Epistatic effects on abdominal fat content in chickens: results from a genome-wide SNP-SNP interaction analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8:e81520. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0081520. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Li H.Z., Wang W., Liu Y.L., He X.F. Association between the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase c.677C>T polymorphism and bone mineral density: an updated meta-analysis. Mol. Genet. Genomics. 2016;291:169–180. doi: 10.1007/s00438-015-1101-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mericq V., Uyeda J.A., Barnes K.M., De Luca F., Baron J. Regulation of fetal rat bone growth by C-type natriuretic peptide and cGMP. Pediatr. Res. 2000;47:189–193. doi: 10.1203/00006450-200002000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Miller C.L., Assimes T.L., Montgomery S.B., Quertermous T. Dissecting the causal genetic mechanisms of coronary heart disease. Curr. Atheroscler. Rep. 2014;16:406. doi: 10.1007/s11883-014-0406-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Moreira G.C.M., Boschiero C., Cesar A.S.M., Reecy J.M., Godoy T.F., Pértille F., Ledur M.C., Moura A.S.A.M.T., Garrick D.J., Coutinho L.L. Integration of genome wide association studies and whole genome sequencing provides novel insights into fat deposition in chicken. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:16222. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-34364-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Nielson C.M., Liu C.T., Smith A.V., Ackert-Bicknell C.L., Reppe S., Jakobsdottir J., Wassel C., Register T.C., Oei L., Alonso N., Oei E.H., Parimi N., Samelson E.J., Nalls M.A., Zmuda J., Lang T., Bouxsein M., Latourelle J., Claussnitzer M., Siggeirsdottir K., Srikanth P., Lorentzen E., Vandenput L., Langefeld C., Raffield L., Terry G., Cox A.J., Allison M.A., Criqui M.H., Bowden D., Ikram M.A., Mellström D., Karlsson M.K., Carr J., Budoff M., Phillips C., Cupples L.A., Chou W.C., Myers R.H., Ralston S.H., Gautvik K.M., Cawthon P.M., Cummings S., Karasik D., Rivadeneira F., Gudnason V., Orwoll E.S., Harris T.B., Ohlsson C., Kiel D.P., Hsu Y.H. Novel genetic variants associated with increased vertebral volumetric BMD, reduced vertebral fracture risk, and increased expression of SLC1A3 and EPHB2. J. Bone Miner. Res. 2016;31:2085–2097. doi: 10.1002/jbmr.2913. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Patel N.G., Kumar S., Eggo M.C. Essential role of fibroblast growth factor signaling in preadipoctye differentiation. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2005;90:1226–1232. doi: 10.1210/jc.2004-1309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Pértille F., Moreira G.C., Zanella R., Nunes J.R., Boschiero C., Rovadoscki G.A., Mourão G.B., Ledur M.C., Coutinho L.L. Genome-wide association study for performance traits in chickens using genotype by sequencing approach. Sci. Rep. 2017;7:41748. doi: 10.1038/srep41748. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Pierre K., Pellerin L. Monocarboxylate transporters in the central nervous system: distribution, regulation and function. J. Neurochem. 2005;94:1–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-4159.2005.03168.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Purcell S., Neale B., Todd-Brown K., Thomas L., Ferreira M.A., Bender D., Maller J., Sklar P., de Bakker P.I., Daly M.J., Sham P.C. PLINK: a tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2007;81:559–575. doi: 10.1086/519795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Pym R.A.E. Techniques to reduce adiposity in meat chickens. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 1987;12:46–55. [Google Scholar]
  48. Raeesi V., Ehsani A., Torshizi R.V., Sargolzaei M., Masoudi A.A., Dideban R. Genome-wide association study of cell-mediated immune response in chicken. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2017;134:405–411. doi: 10.1111/jbg.12265. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ramiah S.K., Meng G.Y., Sheau Wei T., Swee Keong Y., Ebrahimi M. Dietary conjugated linoleic acid supplementation leads to downregulation of PPAR transcription in broiler chickens and reduction of adipocyte cellularity. PPAR Res. 2014;2014:137652. doi: 10.1155/2014/137652. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Ruiz J.R., Larrarte E., Margareto J., Ares R., Alkorta P., Labayen I. Preliminary findings on the role of PLIN1 polymorphisms on body composition and energy metabolism response to energy restriction in obese women. Br. J. Nutr. 2011;106:486–490. doi: 10.1017/S0007114511000432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ruść A., Kamiński S. Prevalence of complex vertebral malformation carriers among Polish Holstein-Friesian bulls. J. Appl. Genet. 2007;48:247–252. doi: 10.1007/BF03195219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Sakaguchi M., Fujisaka S., Cai W., Winnay J.N., Konishi M., O'Neill B.T., Li M., García-Martín R., Takahashi H., Hu J., Kulkarni R.N., Kahn C.R. Adipocyte dynamics and reversible metabolic syndrome in mice with an inducible adipocyte-specific deletion of the insulin receptor. Cell Metab. 2017;25:448–462. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2016.12.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sato S., Uemoto Y., Kikuchi T., Egawa S., Kohira K., Saito T., Sakuma H., Miyashita S., Arata S., Kojima T., Suzuki K. SNP- and haplotype-based genome-wide association studies for growth, carcass, and meat quality traits in a Duroc multigenerational population. BMC Genet. 2016;17:60. doi: 10.1186/s12863-016-0368-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Scheele C.W. Pathological changes in metabolism of poultry related to increasing production levels. Vet. Q. 1997;19:127–130. doi: 10.1080/01652176.1997.9694756. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Spotila L.D., Rodriguez H., Koch M., Tenenhouse H.S., Tenenhouse A., Li H., Devoto M. Association analysis of bone mineral density and single nucleotide polymorphisms in two candidate genes on chromosome 1p36. Calcif. Tissue Int. 2003;73:140–146. doi: 10.1007/s00223-002-2079-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Thomsen B., Horn P., Panitz F., Bendixen E., Petersen A.H., Holm L.E., Nielsen V.H., Agerholm J.S., Arnbjerg J., Bendixen C. A missense mutation in the bovine SLC35A3 gene, encoding a UDP-N-acetylglucosamine transporter, causes complex vertebral malformation. Genome Res. 2006;16:97–105. doi: 10.1101/gr.3690506. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. van den Berg S.W., Dollé M.E., Imholz S., van der A D.L., van 't Slot R., Wijmenga C., Verschuren W.M., Strien C., Siezen C.L., Hoebee B., Feskens E.J., Boer J.M. Genetic variations in regulatory pathways of fatty acid and glucose metabolism are associated with obesity phenotypes: a population-based cohort study. Int. J. Obes. (Lond). 2009;33:1143–1152. doi: 10.1038/ijo.2009.152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Wang C., Tong Q., Hu X.Z., Yang L.G., Zhong X.Q., Yu Y., Wu J.J., Liu W.J., Li X., Hua G.H., Zhao H.Q., Zhang S.J. Identification of complex vertebral malformation carriers in Holstein cattle in South China. Genet. Mol. Res. 2011;10:2443–2448. doi: 10.4238/2011.October.13.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Wang S., Dvorkin D., Da Y. SNPEVG: a graphical tool for GWAS graphing with mouse clicks. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;13:319. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-13-319. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wu Y., Fan H., Wang Y., Zhang L., Gao X., Chen Y., Li J., Ren H., Gao H. Genome-wide association studies using haplotypes and individual SNPs in Simmental cattle. PLoS One. 2014;9:e109330. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Wu Y., Wang W., Jiang W., Yao J., Zhang D. An investigation of obesity susceptibility genes in Northern Han Chinese by targeted resequencing. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e6117. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Yang Z., Li D.M., Xie Q., Dai D.Q. Protein expression and promoter methylation of the candidate biomarker TCF21 in gastric cancer. J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2015;141:211–220. doi: 10.1007/s00432-014-1809-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Yasoda A., Ogawa Y., Suda M., Tamura N., Mori K., Sakuma Y., Chusho H., Shiota K., Tanaka K., Nakao K. Natriuretic peptide regulation of endochondral ossification. Evidence for possible roles of the C-type natriuretic peptide/guanylyl cyclase-B pathway. J. Biol. Chem. 1998;273:11695–11700. doi: 10.1074/jbc.273.19.11695. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhang H., Zhang Y.D., Wang S.Z., Liu X.F., Zhang Q., Tang Z.Q., Li H. Detection and fine mapping of quantitative trait loci for bone traits on chicken chromosome one. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2010;127:462–468. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2010.00871.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Zhang H., Hu X., Wang Z., Zhang Y., Wang S., Wang N., Ma L., Leng L., Wang S., Wang Q., Wang Y., Tang Z., Li N., Da Y., Li H. Selection signature analysis implicates the PC1/PCSK1 region for chicken abdominal fat content. PLoS One. 2012;7:e40736. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040736. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Zhang H.L., Fan H.J., Liu X.L., Wu Y., Hou S.S. Molecular cloning of the perilipin gene and its association with carcass and fat traits in Chinese ducks. Genet. Mol. Res. 2013;12:1582–1592. doi: 10.4238/2013.May.13.12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Zhang L., Zhu Q., Liu Y., Gilbert E.R., Li D., Yin H., Wang Y., Yang Z., Wang Z., Yuan Y., Zhao X. Polymorphisms in the perilipin gene may affect carcass traits of Chinese meat-type chickens. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2015;28:763–770. doi: 10.5713/ajas.14.0554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Zhang H., Na W., Zhang H.L., Wang N., Du Z.Q., Wang S.Z., Wang Z.P., Zhang Z., Li H. TCF21 is related to testis growth and development in broiler chickens. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2017;49:25. doi: 10.1186/s12711-017-0299-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Zhang H., Yu J.Q., Yang L.L., Kramer L.M., Zhang X.Y., Na W., Reecy J.M., Li H. Identification of genome-wide SNP-SNP interactions associated with important traits in chicken. BMC Genomics. 2017;18:892. doi: 10.1186/s12864-017-4252-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Zhou Y., Lei Q.X., Li F.W., Gao J.B., Liu W., Lu Y., Cao D.G. Association on single nucleotide polymorphism of perilipin gene (PLIN) with carcass and fatness traits in luqin chicken (Gallus gallus) J. Agric. Biotechnol. 2014;22:1002–1008. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Table 1
mmc1.xlsx (33.6KB, xlsx)
Supplementary Figure 1

Manhattan plots of 2-SNP sliding window for carcass and growth traits. The results are presented as Manhattan plots based on haplotype 11-specified, 12-specified, 21- specified and 22-specified, respectively. The solid line indicates the Bonferroni threshold for 606 multiple test correction with a type I error of 5% (P-value <1.04 × 10−6).

mmc2.pdf (4.1MB, pdf)
Supplementary Figure 2

Manhattan plots of 3-SNP, 4-SNP and 5-SNP sliding window for carcass and growth traits. The solid line indicates the Bonferroni threshold for multiple test correction with 609 a type I error of 5% (P-value <1.04 × 10−6).

mmc3.pdf (1,016KB, pdf)

Articles from Poultry Science are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES