Genetic variation and potential for genetic improvement of cuticle deposition on chicken eggs.
Journal
Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE
ISSN: 1297-9686
Titre abrégé: Genet Sel Evol
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9114088
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Jun 2019
04 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
12
11
2018
accepted:
17
05
2019
entrez:
6
6
2019
pubmed:
6
6
2019
medline:
14
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The cuticle is an invisible glycosylated protein layer that covers the outside of the eggshell and forms a barrier to the transmission of microorganisms. Cuticle-specific staining and in situ absorbance measurements have been used to quantify cuticle deposition in several pure breeds of chicken. For brown eggs, a pre-stain and a post-stain absorbance measurement is required to correct for intrinsic absorption by the natural pigment. For white eggs, a post-stain absorbance measurement alone is sufficient to estimate cuticle deposition. The objective of the research was to estimate genetic parameters and provide data to promote adoption of the technique to increase cuticle deposition and reduce vertical transmission of microorganisms. For all pure breeds examined here, i.e. Rhode Island Red, two White Leghorns, White Rock and a broiler breed, the estimate of heritability for cuticle deposition from a meta-analysis was moderately high (0.38 ± 0.04). In the Rhode Island Red breed, the estimate of the genetic correlation between measurements recorded at early and late times during the egg-laying period was ~ 1. There was no negative genetic correlation between cuticle deposition and production traits. Estimates of the genetic correlation of cuticle deposition with shell color ranged from negative values or 0 in brown-egg layers to positive values in white- or tinted-egg layers. Using the intrinsic fluorescence of tryptophan in the cuticle proteins to quantify the amount of cuticle deposition failed because of complex quenching processes. Tryptophan fluorescence intensity at 330 nm was moderately heritable, but there was no evidence of a non-zero genetic correlation with cuticle deposition. This was complicated furthermore by a negative genetic correlation of fluorescence with color in brown eggs, due to the quenching of tryptophan fluorescence by energy transfer to protoporphyrin pigment. We also confirmed that removal of the cuticle increased reflection of ultraviolet wavelengths from the egg. These results provide additional evidence for the need to incorporate cuticle deposition into breeding programs of egg- and meat-type birds in order to reduce vertical and horizontal transmission of potentially pathogenic organisms and to help improve biosecurity in poultry.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The cuticle is an invisible glycosylated protein layer that covers the outside of the eggshell and forms a barrier to the transmission of microorganisms. Cuticle-specific staining and in situ absorbance measurements have been used to quantify cuticle deposition in several pure breeds of chicken. For brown eggs, a pre-stain and a post-stain absorbance measurement is required to correct for intrinsic absorption by the natural pigment. For white eggs, a post-stain absorbance measurement alone is sufficient to estimate cuticle deposition. The objective of the research was to estimate genetic parameters and provide data to promote adoption of the technique to increase cuticle deposition and reduce vertical transmission of microorganisms.
RESULTS
RESULTS
For all pure breeds examined here, i.e. Rhode Island Red, two White Leghorns, White Rock and a broiler breed, the estimate of heritability for cuticle deposition from a meta-analysis was moderately high (0.38 ± 0.04). In the Rhode Island Red breed, the estimate of the genetic correlation between measurements recorded at early and late times during the egg-laying period was ~ 1. There was no negative genetic correlation between cuticle deposition and production traits. Estimates of the genetic correlation of cuticle deposition with shell color ranged from negative values or 0 in brown-egg layers to positive values in white- or tinted-egg layers. Using the intrinsic fluorescence of tryptophan in the cuticle proteins to quantify the amount of cuticle deposition failed because of complex quenching processes. Tryptophan fluorescence intensity at 330 nm was moderately heritable, but there was no evidence of a non-zero genetic correlation with cuticle deposition. This was complicated furthermore by a negative genetic correlation of fluorescence with color in brown eggs, due to the quenching of tryptophan fluorescence by energy transfer to protoporphyrin pigment. We also confirmed that removal of the cuticle increased reflection of ultraviolet wavelengths from the egg.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
These results provide additional evidence for the need to incorporate cuticle deposition into breeding programs of egg- and meat-type birds in order to reduce vertical and horizontal transmission of potentially pathogenic organisms and to help improve biosecurity in poultry.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31164080
doi: 10.1186/s12711-019-0467-5
pii: 10.1186/s12711-019-0467-5
pmc: PMC6549311
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
25Subventions
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : BBS/E/D/20211553
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : BBS/E/D/05191130
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : BB/K006096/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : BBS/E/D/20320000
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : BB/P013759/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : BBS/E/D/20211551
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
ID : BB/K0070921/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Références
Electrophoresis. 2003 Mar;24(5):843-52
pubmed: 12627446
Biochem J. 1955 Dec;61(4):641-6
pubmed: 13276349
Br Poult Sci. 2005 Jun;46(3):280-6
pubmed: 16050180
Poult Sci. 2007 Feb;86(2):356-63
pubmed: 17234851
Anim Genet. 2007 Feb;38(1):45-9
pubmed: 17257187
Br Poult Sci. 2008 Mar;49(2):133-43
pubmed: 18409087
Anim Genet. 2009 Feb;40(1):110-4
pubmed: 18828860
Biomed Chromatogr. 2009 Jun;23(6):602-6
pubmed: 19277957
Poult Sci. 2010 Mar;89(3):609-17
pubmed: 20181881
J Food Prot. 2011 Oct;74(10):1649-54
pubmed: 22004811
Anim Genet. 2012 Aug;43(4):410-8
pubmed: 22497523
BMC Genomics. 2013 Jan 28;14:59
pubmed: 23356797
Anim Genet. 2013 Dec;44(6):661-8
pubmed: 23837723
J R Soc Interface. 2015 Feb 6;12(103):null
pubmed: 25505139
Biol Open. 2015 May 11;4(7):753-9
pubmed: 25964661
Contemp Clin Trials. 2015 Nov;45(Pt A):139-45
pubmed: 26343745
Genet Sel Evol. 2015 Dec 30;47:100
pubmed: 26718134
Proc Biol Sci. 2016 Aug 17;283(1836):null
pubmed: 27488648
Br Poult Sci. 2017 Oct;58(5):517-522
pubmed: 28656787
Physiol Biochem Zool. 2017 Sep/Oct;90(5):588-599
pubmed: 28745930
Biol Reprod. 2017 Jul 1;97(1):39-49
pubmed: 28859284
Poult Sci. 2018 May 1;97(5):1818-1823
pubmed: 29506193
Anim Genet. 2018 Aug;49(4):329-333
pubmed: 29797511
Poult Sci. 2019 Feb 1;98(2):940-948
pubmed: 30137530
Poult Sci. 2019 Apr 1;98(4):1775-1784
pubmed: 30476345
Br Poult Sci. 1993 Sep;34(4):655-62
pubmed: 8242405