3.8 Article

Single nucleotide polymorphisms on peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor genes associated with fatness traits in chicken

期刊

ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCES
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 1221-1225

出版社

ASIAN-AUSTRALASIAN ASSOC ANIMAL PRODUCTION SOC
DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2005.1221

关键词

PPARs; SSCP; SNPs; fatness traits; MAS; chicken

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) are members of a superfamily of nuclear hormone receptors. Lots of studies in rodents and humans have shown that PPARs were involved in lipid metabolism and adipocyte differentiation. The main objective of this work was to detect the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in whole coding regions of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPAR-alpha) and gamma (PPAR-gamma) genes with approach of single strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) in the chicken population of Arber Acres broiler, Hyline layer and three Chinese native breeds (Shiqiza, Beijing You, Bai'er). Two SNPs of C1029T and C297T were found in chicken PPAR-alpha and PPAR-gamma genes respectively and each SNP found three genotypes in the experimental populations. The results showed that the distribution frequency of 3 genotypes in Arber Acres broiler, Hyline layer and Chinese native breeds had significant differences on the PPAR-alpha and PPAR-gamma gene respectively (p<0.01). Furthermore, in the PPAR-alpha gene, the results of least square estimation for genotypes and body composition traits showed the BB genotype birds had higher abdominal fat weight (AFW) and percentage of abdominal fat (AFP) than AA genotype birds (p<0.05). From these we conjecture the PPAR-alpha and PPAR-gamma genes were suffered intensive selection during the long term commercial breeding and the PPAR-alpha gene may be a major gene or linked to the major genes that impact chicken fat metabolism and the SNPs could be used in molecular assistant selection (MAS) as a genetic marker for the chicken fatness traits.

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

3.8
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