4.6 Article

Whole Genome Screening Procures a Holistic Hold of the Russian Chicken Gene Pool Heritage and Demographic History

Journal

BIOLOGY-BASEL
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/biology12070979

Keywords

chicken; Russian gene pool breeds; SNPs; whole genome screening; genetic diversity; phylogenetic relationships; demographic history

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the genomes of 19 Russian chicken breeds, evaluating the differences between egg, meat, and dual-purpose types. Differences in genomic regions being selected for were identified using DNA markers. The research provides insights into the genetic diversity and demographic history of Russian domestic chickens, which is essential for successful breeding.
Simple Summary A collection of native farm animal breeds can be considered as a gene pool and a national heritage. Long-term artificial selection in domesticated animals has certain effects on their genomes, which can be investigated using genome-wide screens for DNA sequence variation, that is, so-called single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) screens. Here, we looked at the genomes of 19 Russian chicken gene pool breeds, both native and imported, evaluating the contrasting egg, meat and dual-purpose types. Based on genetic diversity statistics, we identified differences between the breeds using many DNA markers (SNPs) that may represent genomic regions that are being selected for, either within a specific breed or shared between breeds. Our research will be helpful for further understanding the genomic diversity and demographic history of Russian domestic chickens. This would be essential for their successful breeding. A study for genomic variation that may reflect putative selective signaling and be associated with economically important traits is instrumental for obtaining information about demographic and selection history in domestic animal species and populations. A rich variety of the Russian chicken gene pool breeds warrants a further detailed study. Specifically, their genomic features can derive implications from their genome architecture and selective footprints for their subsequent breeding and practical efficient exploitation. In the present work, whole genome genotyping of 19 chicken breeds (20 populations with up to 71 samples each) was performed using the Chicken 50 K BeadChip DNA chip. The studied breed sample included six native Russian breeds of chickens developed in the 17th-19th centuries, as well as eight Russian chicken breeds, including the Russian White (RW), created in the 20th century on the basis of improving local chickens using breeds of foreign selection. Five specialized foreign breeds of chickens, including the White Leghorn (WL), were used along with other breeds representing the Russian gene pool. The characteristics of the genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationships of the native breeds of chickens were represented in comparison with foreign breeds. It was established that the studied native breeds demonstrate their own genetic structure that distinguishes them from foreign breeds, and from each other. For example, we previously made an assumption on what could cause the differences between two RW populations, RW1 and RW2. From the data obtained here, it was verified that WL was additionally crossed to RW2, unlike RW1. Thus, inherently, RW1 is a purer population of this improved Russian breed. A significant contribution of the gene pool of native breeds to the global genetic diversity of chickens was shown. In general, based on the results of a multilateral survey of this sample of breeds, it can be concluded that phylogenetic relationships based on their genetic structure and variability robustly reflect the known, previously postulated and newly discovered patterns of evolution of native chickens. The results herein presented will aid selection and breeding work using this gene pool.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available