4.6 Article

Whole Genome Sequencing Provides Information on the Genomic Architecture and Diversity of Cultivated Gilthead Seabream (Sparus aurata) Broodstock Nuclei

期刊

GENES
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes14040839

关键词

aquaculture; DNA pool-seq; FST; population genetics; signatures of selection; SNP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A genomic strategy was developed in this study to identify selective markers and highly differentiated genomic regions in gilthead seabream populations. The results highlighted the importance of controlling the genetic effect of breeding programs to avoid reducing genetic variability and increasing inbreeding levels.
The gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) is a species of relevance for the Mediterranean aquaculture industry. Despite the advancement of genetic tools for the species, breeding programs still do not often include genomics. In this study, we designed a genomic strategy to identify signatures of selection and genomic regions of high differentiation among populations of farmed fish stocks. A comparative DNA pooling sequencing approach was applied to identify signatures of selection in gilthead seabream from the same hatchery and from different nuclei that had not been subjected to genetic selection. Identified genomic regions were further investigated to detect SNPs with predicted high impact. The analyses underlined major genomic differences in the proportion of fixed alleles among the investigated nuclei. Some of these differences highlighted genomic regions, including genes involved in general metabolism and development already detected in QTL for growth, size, skeletal deformity, and adaptation to variation of oxygen levels in other teleosts. The obtained results pointed out the need to control the genetic effect of breeding programs in this species to avoid the reduction of genetic variability within populations and the increase in inbreeding level that, in turn, might lead to an increased frequency of alleles with deleterious effects.

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