4.6 Article

Chicken chromatin accessibility atlas accelerates epigenetic annotation of birds and gene fine-mapping associated with growth traits

期刊

ZOOLOGICAL RESEARCH
卷 44, 期 1, 页码 53-62

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2022.228

关键词

Chicken; Chromatin accessibility atlas; ATAC-seq; Tissue-specific OCRs; GWAS; Growth traits

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study systematically compiled a chicken chromatin accessibility atlas using 53 Assay of Transposase Accessible Chromatin sequencing (ATAC-seq) samples across 11 tissues. An average of 50,796 open chromatin regions were identified per sample, cumulatively accounting for 20.36% of the chicken genome. Tissue specificity was largely reflected by differences in intergenic and intronic peaks, with specific functional regulation achieved by two mechanisms: recruitment of several sequence.
The development of epigenetic maps, such as the ENCODE project in humans, provides resources for gene regulation studies and a reference for research of disease-related regulatory elements. However, epigenetic information, such as a bird-specific chromatin accessibility atlas, is currently lacking for the thousands of bird species currently described. The major genomic difference between birds and mammals is their shorter introns and intergenic distances, which seriously hinders the use of humans and mice as a reference for studying the function of important regulatory regions in birds. In this study, using chicken as a model bird species, we systematically compiled a chicken chromatin accessibility atlas using 53 Assay of Transposase Accessible Chromatin sequencing (ATAC-seq) samples across 11 tissues. An average of 50 796 open chromatin regions were identified per sample, cumulatively accounting for 20.36% of the chicken genome. Tissue specificity was largely reflected by differences in intergenic and intronic peaks, with specific functional regulation achieved by two mechanisms: recruitment of several sequence -

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据