Open Access
Copyright: The authors. This article is an open access
article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) which permits unrestricted use,
distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly
cited.
R esearch
(Published online:
12-08-2015)
5.
Microsatellite based genetic diversity study in indigenous chicken
ecotypes of Karnataka
-
B. H.
Rudresh, H. N. N. Murthy, M. R. Jayashankar, C. S. Nagaraj, A. M.
Kotresh and S. M. Byregowda
Veterinary World, 8(8): 970-976
doi:
10.14202/vetworld.2015.970-976
B. H. Rudresh:
Department of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Veterinary College,
Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University,
Shimoga, Karnataka, India; rudreshbh1906@yahoo.co.in
H. N. N. Murthy:
Department of Livestock Production and Management, Veterinary
College, Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences
University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India;
hnnm2007@gmail.com
M. R. Jayashankar:
Department of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Veterinary College,
Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries sciences University,
Bangalore, Karnataka, India;
mrjshankar@yahoo.com
C. S. Nagaraj:
All
India Coordinated Research Project on Poultry Meat, Karnataka
Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Veterinary
College, Bangalore, Karnataka, India;
drcsnagaraj@gmail.com
A. M. Kotresh:
Department of Veterinary Physiology and Biochemistry, Veterinary
College, Karnataka Veterinary, Animal and Fisheries sciences
University, Shimoga, Karnataka, India;
amkotresh@gmail.com
S. M. Byregowda: Institute of Animal
Health & Veterinary Biologicals, Bangalore, Karnataka Veterinary,
Animal and Fisheries Sciences University, Karnataka, India;
byregowda@yahoo.com
Received:
12-02-2015, Revised: 30-06-2015, Accepted: 08-07-2015, Published
online: 12-08-2015
Corresponding author:
B. H.
Rudresh, e-mail: rudreshbh1906@yahoo.co.in
Citation:
Rudresh BH, Murthy HNN, Jayashankar MR, Nagaraj CS, Kotresh AM,
Byregowda SM (2015) Microsatellite based genetic diversity study
in indigenous chicken ecotypes of Karnataka, Veterinary World 8(8):
970-976.
Abstract
Aim: The current study was
the first of its kind taken upon indigenous ecotypes of the
Karnataka in order to unravel the diversity details at 20 chicken
microsatellite regions.
Materials and Methods: 210 indigenous chicken belonging to six
districts of Bangalore and Mysore division formed the target
sample for the present study. The genomic deoxyribonucleic acid
was isolated by phenol chloroform isoamyl alcohol method. A panel
of 20 microsatellite regions, including 14 recommended by FAO and
six identified from published scientific literature became the
targeted chicken genomic region. 27-33 samples were successfully
genotyped in each of the six ecotypes through simplex or multiplex
polymerase chain reactions, polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and
silver staining for the selected microsatellite panel.
Results: The chickens of Ramanagara and Chamrajnagara were
most distant with a Nei’s genetic distance value of 0.22. The
chickens of Bangalore rural and Mysore were least distant with a
value of 0.056. The Ramanagara and Chamrajnagara pair had Nei’s
genetic identity value of 0.802, which is least among all pairs of
ecotypes. There were five main nodes from which the six ecotypes
evolved on the basis 20 microsatellite markers used in this study.
This study indicates that the four ecotypes Ramnagara, Bangalore
Rural, Chickaballapura and Mysore are genetically identical due to
their common ancestral evolution while, Mandya and Chamrajnagara
ecotypes formed a relatively different cluster due to a separate
common ancestral chicken population and less number of generations
since drifting from bifurcation node.
Conclusion: Twenty microsatellite markers based genetic
diversity study on six indigenous ecotypes indicated lower genetic
distances as well as lower FST values compared to the
distinguished breeds reported. There were two main clusters, which
differentiated into six ecotypes. They may differentiate into more
distinct varieties if bred in isolation for a longer number of
generations.
Keywords: animal genetic resources, ecotypes,
microsatellites, polyacrylamide gel.
References
1. Groeneveld, L.F., Lenstra, J.A., Eding, H., Toro, M.A.,
Scherf, B., Pilling, D., Negrini, R., Finlay, E.K., Jianlin,
H., Groeneveld, E., Weigend, S. and The Globaldiv Consortium.
(2010) Genetic diversity in livestock breeds – A review. Anim.
Genet., 41 Suppl 1: 6-31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2010.02038.x
PMid:20500753 |
|
|
|
2. Khosravinia, H., Narasimha Murthy, H.N., Therthaparasad, D.
and Pirany, N. (2007) Optimizing factors influencing DNA
extraction from fresh whole avian blood. Afr. J. Biotech.,
6(4): 481-486. |
|
|
3. Chang, C.S., Chen, C.F., Berthouly Salazar, C., Chazara,
O., Lee, Y.P., Chang, C.M., Chang, K.H., Bedhom, B. and
Tixier-Boichard, M. (2011) A global analysis of molecular
marker and phenotypic traits in local chicken breeds in
Taiwan. Anim. Genet., 43: 172-182.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2011.02226.x
PMid:22404353 |
|
|
4. Sangwon, S., Sharma, A., Lee, S., Cho, C.Y., Kim, J.H.,
Choi, S.B., Kim, H., Seong, H.H., Yeon, S.H., Kim, D.H. and
Ko, Y.G. (2014) Genetic diversity and relationships of Korean
chicken breeds based on 30 microsatellite markers. Asian Aust.
J. Anim. Sci., 27(10): 1399-1405.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2014.14016
PMid:25178290 PMCid:PMC4150171 |
|
|
5. Choi, N.R., Hoque, R., Seo, D.W., Sultana, H., Park, H.B.,
Lim, H.T., Heo, K.N., Kang, B.S., Jo, C. and Lee, J.H. (2012)
ISAG recommennded microsatellite marker analysis among five
korean native chicken lines. J. Anim. Sci. Technol., 54(6):
401-409.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5187/JAST.2012.54.6.401 |
|
|
6. Eltanany, M., Philipp, U., Weigend, S. and Distl, O. (2011)
Genetic diversity of ten Egyptian chicken strains using 29
microsatellite markers. Anim. Genet., 42: 666-669.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2052.2011.02185.x
PMid:22035011 |
|
|
|
7. Halima, B., Jean-Marie, J., Jean-Pierre, B. and Guy, M.
(2006) Optimization of a reliable, fast, cheap and sensitive
silver staining method to detect SSR markers in polyacrylamide
gels. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ., 10(2): 77-81. |
|
|
8. Barton, N.H. and Hewitt, G.M. (1985) Analysis of hybrid
zones. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst., 16: 113-148.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.es.16.110185.000553 |
|
|
9. Nei, M. (1978) Estimation of average heterozygosity and
genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics,
89: 583-590.
PMid:17248844 PMCid:PMC1213855 |
|
|
|
10. Nei, M. (1987) Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. Columbia
Press, New York. |
|
|
11. Pirany, N., Romanov, M.N., Ganpule, S.P., Devegowda, G.
and Prasad, D.T. (2007) Microsatellite analysis of genetic
diversity in Indian chicken populations. J. Poult. Sci., 44:
19-28.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2141/jpsa.44.19 |
|
|
12. Balloux, F. and Lugon-Moulin, N. (2002) The estimation of
population differentiation with microsatellite markers. Mol.
Ecol., 11: 155-165.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0962-1083.2001.01436.x
PMid:11856418 |
|
|
13. Chatterjee, R.N., Niranjan, M., Sharma, R.P., Dange, M.
and Bhattacharya, T.K. (2010) Estimation of genetic
heterogeneity of chicken germplasm being used for development
of rural varieties utilizing DNA markers. J. Genet., 89:
e33-e37.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12041-011-0006-9 |
|
|
|
14. FAO. (2011) Molecular genetic characterization of animal
genetic resources. Animal Production and Health Guidelines.
No. 9. 14. FAO, Rome. |
|
|
|
15. Hartl, D.L. and Clark, A.G. (1997) Principles of
Population Genetics. 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates Inc.,
Sunderland, MA. p275-284. |
|
