4.6 Article

Genome-Wide Analysis of Sheep Artificially or Naturally Infected with Gastrointestinal Nematodes

期刊

GENES
卷 14, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes14071342

关键词

sheep; gastrointestinal nematodes; fecal egg count; genome-wide association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Genome-wide association studies were conducted to identify SNPs associated with the biological response to a GIN infection in lambs. The results showed the importance of immune cell development and mucin production in enhancing sheep resistance to GINs.
The anthelmintic resistance of gastrointestinal nematodes (GINs) poses a significant threat to sheep worldwide, but genomic selection can serve as an alternative to the use of chemical treatment as a solution for parasitic infection. The objective of this study is to conduct genome-wide association studies (GWASs) to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in Rambouillet (RA) and Dorper x White Dorper (DWD) lambs associated with the biological response to a GIN infection. All lambs were genotyped with a medium-density genomic panel with 40,598 markers used for analysis. Separate GWASs were conducted using fecal egg counts (FECs) from lambs (<1 year of age) that acquired their artificial infections via an oral inoculation of 10,000 Haemonchus contortus larvae (n = 145) or naturally while grazing on pasture (n = 184). A GWAS was also performed for packed cell volume (PCV) in artificially GIN-challenged lambs. A total of 26 SNPs exceeded significance and 21 SNPs were in or within 20 kb of genes such as SCUBE1, GALNT6, IGF1R, CAPZB and PTK2B. The ontology analysis of candidate genes signifies the importance of immune cell development, mucin production and cellular signaling for coagulation and wound healing following epithelial damage in the abomasal gastric pits via H. contortus during GIN infection in lambs. These results add to a growing body of the literature that promotes the use of genomic selection for increased sheep resistance to GINs.

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