Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27230772›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2016

Genomic analysis of Ugandan and Rwandan chicken ecotypes using a 600 k genotyping array.

D S Fleming, J E Koltes, A D Markey, C J Schmidt, C M Ashwell, M F Rothschild, M E Persia, J M Reecy, S J Lamont

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
6.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 74 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Fourth Report on Chicken Genes and Chromosomes 2022.Cytogenetic and genome research · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

D S FlemingIowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
J E KoltesIowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
A D MarkeyIowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
C J SchmidtUniversity of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA.
C M AshwellNorth Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
M F RothschildIowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
M E PersiaVirginia Polytechnic University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
J M ReecyIowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.
S J LamontIowa State University, Ames, IA, USA. sjlamont@iastate.edu.
Iowa State University · USNorth Carolina State University · USUniversity of Delaware · USVirginia Tech · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIndigenous populations of animals have developed unique adaptations to their local environments, which may include factors such as response to thermal stress, drought, pathogens and suboptimal nutrition. The survival and subsequent evolution within these local environments can be the result of both natural and artificial selection driving the acquisition of favorable traits, which over time leave genomic signatures in a population. This study's goals are to characterize genomic diversity and identify selection signatures in chickens from equatorial Africa to identify genomic regions that may confer adaptive advantages of these ecotypes to their environments.

resultsIndigenous chickens from Uganda (n = 72) and Rwanda (n = 100), plus Kuroilers (n = 24, an Indian breed imported to Africa), were genotyped using the Axiom® 600 k Chicken Genotyping Array. Indigenous ecotypes were defined based upon location of sampling within Africa. The results revealed the presence of admixture among the Ugandan, Rwandan, and Kuroiler populations. Genes within runs of homozygosity consensus regions are linked to gene ontology (GO) terms related to lipid metabolism, immune functions and stress-mediated responses (FDR < 0.15). The genes within regions of signatures of selection are enriched for GO terms related to health and oxidative stress processes. Key genes in these regions had anti-oxidant, apoptosis, and inflammation functions.

conclusionsThe study suggests that these populations have alleles under selective pressure from their environment, which may aid in adaptation to harsh environments. The correspondence in gene ontology terms connected to stress-mediated processes across the populations could be related to the similarity of environments or an artifact of the detected admixture.

Indexed as

EcotypeGenomeGenomicsGenotypeAnimalsChickensComputational BiologyGene OntologyGenetics, PopulationGenotyping TechniquesHomozygoteSelection, GeneticHomozygositySelection signaturesStress response

Identifiers

PMID27230772
PMCPMC4882793
OpenAlexW2396406541

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.