Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 117, No. 1-4, 2007
Issue release date: July 2007
Cytogenet Genome Res 117:305–312 (2007)
(DOI:10.1159/000103192)

Parent-of-origin specific QTL – a possibility towards understanding reciprocal effects in chicken and the origin of imprinting

Tuiskula-Haavisto M. · Vilkki J.
Biotechnology and Food Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Jokioinen (Finland)

Individual Users: Register with Karger Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information











I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Abstract

Reciprocal effects for sexual maturity, egg production, egg quality traits and viability are well known in poultry crosses. They have been used in an optimal way to form profitable production hybrids. These effects have been hypothesized to originate from sex-linked genes, maternal effects or a combination of both. However, these may not be the only explanations for reciprocal effects. Recent mapping of quantitative trait loci (QTL) has revealed autosomal areas with parent-of-origin specific effects in the chicken. In mammals, parental imprinting, i.e. the specifically regulated expression of either maternal or paternal allele in the offspring, is the main cause of such effects. The most commonly accepted hypothesis for the origin of imprinting, the conflict hypothesis, assumes a genetic conflict of interest between the maternal and paternal genomes regarding the allocation of resources to the offspring. It also intrinsically implies that imprinting should not occur in oviparous taxa. However, new molecular genetic information has raised a need to review the possible involvement of imprinting or some related phenomena as a putative cause of reciprocal effects in poultry. Comparative mapping provides strong evidence for the conservation of orthologous imprinted gene clusters on chicken macrochromosomes. Furthermore, these gene clusters exhibit asynchronous DNA replication, an epigenetic mark specific for all imprinted regions. It has been proposed that these intrinsic chromosomal properties have been important for the evolution of imprinted gene expression in the mammalian lineage. Many of the mapped parent-of-origin specific QTL effects in chicken locate in or close to these conserved regions that show some of the basic features involved in monoallelic expression. If monoallelic expression in these regions would be observed in birds, the actual mechanism and cause may be different from the imprinting that evolved later in the mammalian lineage. In this review we discuss recent molecular genetic results that may provide tools for understanding of reciprocal differences in poultry breeding and the evolution of imprinting.



Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Alleman M, Doctor J: Genomic imprinting in plants: observations and evolutionary implications. Plant Mol Biol 43:147–161 (2000).
  2. Barlow DP, Stoger R, Herrmann BG, Saito K, Schweifer N: The mouse insulin-like growth factor type-2 receptor is imprinted and closely linked to the Tme locus. Nature 349:84–87 (1991).
  3. Bartolomei MS, Zemel S, Tilghman SM: Parental imprinting of the mouse H19 gene. Nature 351:153–155 (1991).
  4. Bell AE, Moore CH, Bohren BB, Warren DC: Systems of breeding designed to utilize heterosis in the domestic fowl. Poult Sci 31:11–22 (1952).

    External Resources

  5. Buitenhuis AJ, Rodenburg TB, van Hierden YM, Siwek M, Cornelissen SJ, et al: Mapping quantitative trait loci affecting feather pecking behavior and stress response in laying hens. Poult Sci 82:1215–1222 (2003).
  6. Buitenhuis AJ, Rodenburg TB, van Hierden YM, Siwek M, Cornelissen SJ, et al: Erratum to ‘Mapping quantitative trait loci affecting feather pecking behavior and stress response in laying hens’. Poult Sci 85:1115–1116 (2006).
  7. Castro-Sierra E, Ohno S: Allelic inhibition at the autosomally inherited gene locus for liver alcohol dehydrogenase in chicken-quail hybrids. Biochem Genet 1:323–335 (1968).
  8. Corley-Smith GE, Lim CJ, Brandhorst BP: Production of androgenetic zebrafish (Danio rerio). Genetics 142:1265–1276 (1996).
  9. de Koning DJ, Rattink AP, Harlizius B, van Arendonk JA, Brascamp EW, Groenen MA: Genome-wide scan for body composition in pigs reveals important role of imprinting. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97:7947–7950 (2000).
  10. DeChiara TM, Robertson EJ, Efstratiadis A: Parental imprinting of the mouse insulin-like growth factor II gene. Cell 64:849–859 (1991).
  11. Dunzinger U, Nanda I, Schmid M, Haaf T, Zechner U: Chicken orthologues of mammalian imprinted genes are clustered on macrochromosomes and replicate asynchronously. Trends Genet 21:488–492 (2005).
  12. Fairfull RW, Gowe RS: Genetics and egg production in chickens, in Crawford RD (ed): Poultry Breeding and Genetics, pp 705–760 (Elsevier, Amsterdam 1990).
  13. Fairfull RW, Gowe RS, Emsley JA: Diallel cross of six long-term selected leghorn strains with emphasis on heterosis and reciprocal effects. Br Poult Sci 24:133–158 (1983).
  14. Fitzpatrick GV, Soloway PD, Higgins MJ: Regional loss of imprinting and growth deficiency in mice with a targeted deletion of KvDMR1. Nat Genet 32:426–431 (2002).
  15. Goldmit M, Bergman Y: Monoallelic gene expression: a repertoire of recurrent themes. Immunol Rev 200:197–214 (2004).
  16. Groenen MA, Cheng HH, Bumstead N, Benkel BF, Briles WE, et al: A consensus linkage map of the chicken genome. Genome Res 10:137–147 (2000).
  17. Haig D, Westoby M: Parent-specific gene expression and the triploid endosperm. Am Nat 134:147–155 (1989).

    External Resources

  18. Haley CS, Knott SA: A simple regression method for mapping quantitative trait loci in line crosses using flanking markers. Heredity 69:315–324 (1992).
  19. Haley CS, Knott SA, Elsen JM: Mapping quantitative trait loci in crosses between outbred lines using least squares. Genetics 136:1195–1207 (1994).
  20. Hall JG: Genomic imprinting: review and relevance to human diseases. Am J Hum Genet 46:857–873 (1990).
  21. Hartmann W: From Mendel to multi-national in poultry breeding. Br Poult Sci 29:3–26 (1988).

    External Resources

  22. Iwasa Y: The conflict theory of genomic imprinting: how much can be explained? Curr Top Dev Biol 40:255–293 (1998).
  23. Kayang BB, Fillon V, Inoue-Murayama M, Miwa M, Leroux S, et al: Integrated maps in quail (Coturnix japonica) confirm the high degree of synteny conservation with chicken (Gallus gallus) despite 35 million years of divergence. BMC Genomics 7:101 (2006).
  24. Kitsberg D, Selig S, Brandeis M, Simon I, Keshet I, et al: Allele-specific replication timing of imprinted gene regions. Nature 364:459–463 (1993).
  25. Knoll JH, Cheng SD, Lalande M: Allele specificity of DNA replication timing in the Angelman/Prader-Willi syndrome imprinted chromosomal region. Nat Genet 6:41–46 (1994).
  26. Knott SA, Marklund L, Haley CS, Andersson K, William D, et al: Multiple marker mapping of quantitative trait loci in a cross between outbred wild boar and large white pigs. Genetics 149:1069–1080 (1998).
  27. Koski LB, Sasaki E, Roberts RD, Gibson J, Etches RJ: Monoalleleic transcription of the insulin-like growth factor-II gene (Igf2) in chick embryos. Mol Reprod Dev 56:345–352 (2000).
  28. Ladjali-Mohammedi K, Bitgood JJ, Tixier-Boi- chard M, Ponce de Leon FA: International system for standardized avian karyotypes (ISSAK): standardized banded karyotypes of the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus). Cytogenet Cell Genet 86:271–276 (1999).
  29. Leighton PA, Ingram RS, Eggenschwiler J, Efstratiadis A, Tilghman SM: Disruption of imprinting caused by deletion of the H19 gene region in mice. Nature 375:34–39 (1995).
  30. Lloyd VK, Sinclair DA, Grigliatti TA: Genomic imprinting and position-effect variegation in Drosophila melanogaster. Genetics 151:1503–1516 (1999).
  31. Mancini-Dinardo D, Steele SJ, Ingram RS, Tilghman SM: A differentially methylated region within the gene Kcnq1 functions as an imprinted promoter and silencer. Hum Mol Genet 12:283–294 (2003).
  32. Mancini-Dinardo D, Steele SJ, Levorse JM, Ingram RS, Tilghman SM: Elongation of the Kcnq1ot1 transcript is required for genomic imprinting of neighboring genes. Genes Dev 20:1268–1282 (2006).
  33. McElroy JP, Kim JJ, Harry DE, Brown SR, Dekkers JC, Lamont SJ: Identification of trait loci affecting white meat percentage and other growth and carcass traits in commercial broiler chickens. Poult Sci 85:593–605 (2006).
  34. McGrath J, Solter D: Completion of mouse embryogenesis requires both the maternal and paternal genomes. Cell 37:179–183 (1984).
  35. Minvielle F, Kayang BB, Inoue-Murayama M, Miwa M, Vignal A, et al: Microsatellite mapping of QTL affecting growth, feed consumption, egg production, tonic immobility and body temperature of Japanese quail. BMC Genomics 6:87 (2005).
  36. Miyamoto T, Hasuike S, Jinno Y, Soejima H, Yun K, et al: The human ASCL2 gene escaping genomic imprinting and its expression pattern. J Assist Reprod Genet 19:240–244 (2002).
  37. Moore T, Haig D: Genomic imprinting in mammalian development: a parental tug-of-war. Trends Genet 7:45–49 (1991).
  38. Morison IM, Ramsay JP, Spencer HG: A census of mammalian imprinting. Trends Genet 21:457–465 (2005).
  39. Nicholls RD, Knepper JL: Genome organization, function, and imprinting in Prader-Willi and Angelman syndromes. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2:153–175 (2001).
  40. Nolan CM, Killian JK, Petitte JN, Jirtle RL: Imprint status of M6P/IGF2R and IGF2 in chickens. Dev Genes Evol 211:179–183 (2001).
  41. O’Neill MJ, Ingram RS, Vrana PB, Tilghman SM: Allelic expression of IGF2 in marsupials and birds. Dev Genes Evol 210:18–20 (2000).
  42. Ohno S, Christian L, Stenius C, Castro-Sierra E, Muramoto J: Developmental genetics of the alcohol dehydrogenase locus of the Japanese quail. Biochem Genet 2:361–369 (1969).
  43. Okamura K, Ito T: Lessons from comparative analysis of species-specific imprinted genes. Cytogenet Genome Res 113:159–164 (2006).
  44. Onyango P, Miller W, Lehoczky J, Leung CT, Birren B, et al: Sequence and comparative analysis of the mouse 1-megabase region orthologous to the human 11p15 imprinted domain. Genome Res 10:1697–1710 (2000).
  45. Park HB, Jacobsson L, Wahlberg P, Siegel PB, Andersson L: QTL analysis of body composition and metabolic traits in an intercross between chicken lines divergently selected for growth. Physiol Genomics 25:216–223 (2006).
  46. Paulsen M, Khare T, Burgard C, Tierling S, Walter J: Evolution of the Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome region in vertebrates. Genome Res 15:146–153 (2005).
  47. Reik W, Walter J: Genomic imprinting: parental influence on the genome. Nat Rev Genet 2:21–32 (2001).
  48. Reik W, Collick A, Norris ML, Barton SC, Surani MA: Genomic imprinting determines methylation of parental alleles in transgenic mice. Nature 328:248–251 (1987).
  49. Richards EJ: Inherited epigenetic variation – revisiting soft inheritance. Nat Rev Genet 7:395–401 (2006).
  50. Sheridan AK, Randall MC: Heterosis for egg production in white leghorn Australorp crosses. Br Poult Sci 18:69–77 (1977).

    External Resources

  51. Siwek M, Cornelissen SJ, Nieuwland MG, Buitenhuis AJ, Bovenhuis H, et al: Detection of QTL for immune response to sheep red blood cells in laying hens. Anim Genet 34:422–428 (2003).
  52. Spencer HG: Population genetics and evolution of genomic imprinting. Annu Rev Genet 34:457–477 (2000).
  53. Swain JL, Stewart TA, Leder P: Parental legacy determines methylation and expression of an autosomal transgene: a molecular mechanism for parental imprinting. Cell 50:719–727 (1987).
  54. Tuiskula-Haavisto M, de Koning DJ, Honkatukia M, Schulman NF, Maki-Tanila A, Vilkki J: Quantitative trait loci with parent-of-origin effects in chicken. Genet Res 84:57–66 (2004).
  55. Wang Z, Fan H, Yang HH, Hu Y, Buetow KH, Lee MP: Comparative sequence analysis of imprinted genes between human and mouse to reveal imprinting signatures. Genomics 83:395–401 (2004).
  56. Wearden S, Tindell D, Craig JV: Use of a full diallel cross to estimate general and specific combining ability in chickens. Poult Sci 44:1043–1053 (1965).
  57. Wearden S, Craig JV, Tindell D: Components of specific combining ability estimated from strain and breed crosses in chickens. Poult Sci 46:1398–1406 (1967).
  58. Wilkins JF, Haig D: What good is genomic imprinting: the function of parent-specific gene expression. Nat Rev Genet 4:359–368 (2003).
  59. Yokomine T, Kuroiwa A, Tanaka K, Tsudzuki M, Matsuda Y, Sasaki H: Sequence polymorphisms, allelic expression status and chromosome locations of the chicken IGF2 and MPR1 genes. Cytogenet Cell Genet 93:109–113 (2001).
  60. Yokomine T, Shirohzu H, Purbowasito W, Toyoda A, Iwama H, et al: Structural and functional analysis of a 0.5-Mb chicken region orthologous to the imprinted mammalian Ascl2/Mash2-Igf2-H19 region. Genome Res 15:154–165 (2005).


Pay-per-View Options
Direct payment This item at the regular price: USD 38.00
Payment from account With a Karger Pay-per-View account (down payment USD 150) you profit from a special rate for this and other single items.
This item at the discounted price: USD 26.50