The study of the genetic structure of experimental populations of different species of animals and birds is one of the most actual problems of modern agricultural biology. Microsatellites are referred to one of the most effective tools for studying the genetic variability of populations.
The objective of the research is to determine the genetic differentiation of five subpopulations of Ukrainian dual-purpose chickens using microsatellite markers.
The research was carried out on five subpopulations of Ukrainian dual-purpose chickens – G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4 and C. The following microsatellite markers were used for the research: MCW0081, MCW0034, MCW0104, ADL0268, LEI0166, ADL0278, LEI0094, and MCW0123.
The avian feathers were used as a source of biological material. DNA from the test samples was isolated using a DNA-sorb-B commercial reagent kit (AmpliSens, Russia). The amplification was carried out using standard methods and appropriate reagents.
Polymorphism for each of studied microsatellite loci in the experimental subpopulations of dual-purpose chickens of Ukrainian selection was identified. The total indicators of genetic variability in all experimental groups differed. The total allele pool in all experimental populations for 8 selected microsatellite loci was presented by 38 alleles. The lowest genetic diversity for the number of alleles per locus in all experimental populations was shown for ADL0278 marker (3 alleles per locus), the largest – for MCW0104 (6.4 alleles per locus). According to the analysis of Write’s F-statistics, most of the revealed genetic variability corresponded to the intra-population component (9.2% of the total genetic variability were distributed between subpopulations and 90.8% within subpopulations). It was revealed that G-1 and G-4 subpopulations were the most remote by the values of genetics distances (28.8% of differences), while G-2 and G-3 subpopulations were the closest (13.3% of differences).
So, as results of the research, pronounced difference between subpopulations was revealed that corresponds to the average degree of divergence in experimental chicken groups. This reflects their common origin and the intensity of the breeding work being carried out.
Key words: population, chickens, microsatellites, polymorphism, allele, genetic structure.
- Khlestkina E.K. Molecular markers in genetic studies and breeding / E.K. Khlestkina // Russ. J. Genetics. – 2014. – Vol. 4 (3). – P. 236–244.
- Microsatellite markers: what they mean and why they are so useful / M.L.C. Vieira, L. Santini, A.L. Diniz [et al.] // Genetic and molecular biology. – 2016. – Vol. 39 (3). – P. 312–328.
- Absence of population substructuring in Zimbabwe chicken ecotypes inferred using microsatellite analysis / F. Muchadeyi, H. Eding, C. Wollny [et al.] // Animal Genetics. – 2007. – Vol. 38, №4. – R. 332–339.
- Gholizadeh M. Use of microsatellite markers in poultry research / M. Gholizadeh, G.R. Mianji // International Journal of Poultry Science. – 2007. – Vol. 6 (2). – P. 145–153.
- Relationship between microsatellite marker alleles on chromosomes 1-5 originating arom the Rhode Island Red and Green-legged Partrigenous breeds and egg production and quality traits in F2 mapping population / B. Wardecka, R. Olszewski, K. Jaszczak [et al.] // J. Appl. Genet. – 2002. – Vol. 43 (3). – P. 319–329.
- Evolution of the polymorphism at molecular markers in QTL and non-QTL regions in selected chicken lines / V. Loywyck, B. Bedhom, M.H. Pinard-van der Laan [et al.] // Genet. Sel. Evol. – 2008. – Vol. 40. – P. 639–661.
- Microsatellite Markers Associated with Resistance to Mareks Disease in Commercial Layer Chickens / J.P. McElroy, J.C. Dekkers, J.E. Fulton [et al.] // Poultry Science. – 2005. – Vol. 84. – P. 1678–1688.
- Bumstead N. Genomic mapping of resistance to Mareks disease / N. Bumstead // Avian Pathology. – 1998. – Vol. 27. – P. S78–S81.
- Romanov M.N. Analysis of genetic relationships between various populations of domestic and jungle fowl using microsatellite markers / M.N. Romanov, S. Weigend // Poultry science. – 2001. – Vol. 80. – P. 1057–1063.
- Henotypuvannia kurei krosu “Loman bilyi” / A.V. Shelov, V.H. Spyrydonov, S.D. Melnychuk [ta in.] // Biolohiia tvaryn: naukovo-teoretychnyi zhurnal. – 2009. – Tom. 11, № 1. – S. 276–280.
- Vykorystannia mikrosatelitnykh markeriv DNK dlia kontroliu pokhodzhennia ta odnoridnosti populiatsii silskohospodarskoi ptytsi / A.V. Shelov, N.P. Ponomarenko, V.P. Borodai [y dr.] // Suchasne ptakhivnytstvo. – 2013. – № 2 (123). – S. 16–19.
- Monitorynh imunohenetychnoi struktury kurei riznykh porid / O.P. Podstrieshnyi, V.P. Khvostyk, I.O. Podstrieshna [ta in.] // Ptakhivnytstvo: mizhvid. temat. nauk. zb. – 2011. – Vyp. 67. – S. 65–73.
- Henetychna struktura miaso-yaiechnykh kurei za polimorfnymy bilkovymy lokusamy / O.P. Podstrieshnyi, S.V. Ruda, V.V. Bohatyr [ta in.] // Ptakhivnytstvo: mizhvid. temat. nauk. zb. – 2004. – Vyp. 54. – S. 73–79.
- Katerynych O.A. Borkovskye miaso-yaychnyie kuryi – ptytsa dlia fermerskykh y pryusadebnyikh khoziaistv / O.A. Katerynych, Yu.V. Bondarenko, V.V. Bohatyir // Ptakhivnytstvo: mizhvid. temat. nauk. zb. – 2003. – Vyp. 53. – S. 70–75.
- Hospodarsko korysni oznaky kurei vitchyznianoho henofondu / V.P.Khvostyk, O.P. Zakharchenko, Yu.S. Liutyi [ta in.] // Ptakhivnytstvo. Mizhvidomchyi naukovyi tematychnyi zbirnyk. – 2013. – № 70. – S. 30–34.
- FAO, 2011. Molecular genetic characterization of animal genetic resources. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Publ., Rome, Italy.
- Merkureva E. K. Henetycheskye osnovyi selektsyy v skotovodstve // M.: Kolos, 1977. – 240 s.
- Nei M. Estimation of fixation indices and gene diversities / M. Nei, R.K. Chesser // Ann. Hum. Genet. – 1983. – Vol. 47. – P. 253–259.
- Shete S. On Estimating the Heterozygosity and Polymorphism Information Content Value / S. Shete, H. Tiwari, R.C. Elston // Theoretical Population Biology. – 2000. – Vol. 57. – P. 265–271.
- Kuznetsov V.M. F-statystyky raita: otsenka y ynterpretatsyia / V.M. Kuznetsov // Nauchno-teoretycheskyi zhurnal «Problemyi byolohyy produktyvnyikh zhyvotnyikh». – 2014. – №4. – C. 80–104.