Large-scale genomic analysis reveals the genetic cost of chicken domestication.
Bottleneck
Deleterious mutation
Domestic chicken
Domestication
Genetic load
Journal
BMC biology
ISSN: 1741-7007
Titre abrégé: BMC Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101190720
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 06 2021
16 06 2021
Historique:
received:
02
10
2020
accepted:
19
05
2021
entrez:
16
6
2021
pubmed:
17
6
2021
medline:
2
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Species domestication is generally characterized by the exploitation of high-impact mutations through processes that involve complex shifting demographics of domesticated species. These include not only inbreeding and artificial selection that may lead to the emergence of evolutionary bottlenecks, but also post-divergence gene flow and introgression. Although domestication potentially affects the occurrence of both desired and undesired mutations, the way wild relatives of domesticated species evolve and how expensive the genetic cost underlying domestication is remain poorly understood. Here, we investigated the demographic history and genetic load of chicken domestication. We analyzed a dataset comprising over 800 whole genomes from both indigenous chickens and wild jungle fowls. We show that despite having a higher genetic diversity than their wild counterparts (average π, 0.00326 vs. 0.00316), the red jungle fowls, the present-day domestic chickens experienced a dramatic population size decline during their early domestication. Our analyses suggest that the concomitant bottleneck induced 2.95% more deleterious mutations across chicken genomes compared with red jungle fowls, supporting the "cost of domestication" hypothesis. Particularly, we find that 62.4% of deleterious SNPs in domestic chickens are maintained in heterozygous states and masked as recessive alleles, challenging the power of modern breeding programs to effectively eliminate these genetic loads. Finally, we suggest that positive selection decreases the incidence but increases the frequency of deleterious SNPs in domestic chicken genomes. This study reveals a new landscape of demographic history and genomic changes associated with chicken domestication and provides insight into the evolutionary genomic profiles of domesticated animals managed under modern human selection.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Species domestication is generally characterized by the exploitation of high-impact mutations through processes that involve complex shifting demographics of domesticated species. These include not only inbreeding and artificial selection that may lead to the emergence of evolutionary bottlenecks, but also post-divergence gene flow and introgression. Although domestication potentially affects the occurrence of both desired and undesired mutations, the way wild relatives of domesticated species evolve and how expensive the genetic cost underlying domestication is remain poorly understood. Here, we investigated the demographic history and genetic load of chicken domestication.
RESULTS
We analyzed a dataset comprising over 800 whole genomes from both indigenous chickens and wild jungle fowls. We show that despite having a higher genetic diversity than their wild counterparts (average π, 0.00326 vs. 0.00316), the red jungle fowls, the present-day domestic chickens experienced a dramatic population size decline during their early domestication. Our analyses suggest that the concomitant bottleneck induced 2.95% more deleterious mutations across chicken genomes compared with red jungle fowls, supporting the "cost of domestication" hypothesis. Particularly, we find that 62.4% of deleterious SNPs in domestic chickens are maintained in heterozygous states and masked as recessive alleles, challenging the power of modern breeding programs to effectively eliminate these genetic loads. Finally, we suggest that positive selection decreases the incidence but increases the frequency of deleterious SNPs in domestic chicken genomes.
CONCLUSION
This study reveals a new landscape of demographic history and genomic changes associated with chicken domestication and provides insight into the evolutionary genomic profiles of domesticated animals managed under modern human selection.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34130700
doi: 10.1186/s12915-021-01052-x
pii: 10.1186/s12915-021-01052-x
pmc: PMC8207802
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
118Subventions
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 31771415
Références
Mol Ecol. 2014 Aug;23(16):4089-102
pubmed: 24863459
Nat Genet. 2015 Oct;47(10):1141-8
pubmed: 26323058
Nat Genet. 2019 May;51(5):896-904
pubmed: 31043759
Genetics. 2011 Feb;187(2):553-66
pubmed: 21098719
Cell Res. 2020 Aug;30(8):693-701
pubmed: 32581344
Gen Comp Endocrinol. 2016 Mar 1;228:69-78
pubmed: 26873630
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1979 Oct;76(10):5269-73
pubmed: 291943
Cell. 2019 May 30;177(6):1419-1435.e31
pubmed: 31056281
Sci Rep. 2020 Sep 3;10(1):14532
pubmed: 32883984
PLoS Genet. 2019 Apr 29;15(4):e1007989
pubmed: 31034467
Bioinformatics. 2014 Oct 15;30(20):2843-51
pubmed: 24974202
Anim Genet. 2020 Feb;51(1):51-57
pubmed: 31746479
Trends Genet. 2006 Mar;22(3):126-31
pubmed: 16443304
Nat Rev Genet. 2020 Aug;21(8):449-460
pubmed: 32265525
Nucleic Acids Res. 2011 Jul;39(Web Server issue):W307-15
pubmed: 21646343
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Aug 1;34(8):1981-1990
pubmed: 28444234
Zool Res. 2020 Mar 18;41(2):97-104
pubmed: 31945812
Hum Genomics. 2004 May;1(4):274-86
pubmed: 15588487
Trends Genet. 2013 Apr;29(4):197-205
pubmed: 23415592
Genome Res. 2010 Sep;20(9):1297-303
pubmed: 20644199
Mol Biol Evol. 2020 Sep 1;37(9):2616-2629
pubmed: 32384152
Cell. 2003 Oct 17;115(2):151-62
pubmed: 14567913
Nat Rev Genet. 2015 Jun;16(6):333-43
pubmed: 25963372
Science. 2017 Apr 28;356(6336):442-445
pubmed: 28450643
Genome Biol. 2010;11(6):R68
pubmed: 20573239
BMC Genomics. 2019 Apr 2;20(1):263
pubmed: 30940068
C R Biol. 2011 Mar;334(3):197-204
pubmed: 21377614
PLoS Genet. 2009 Oct;5(10):e1000695
pubmed: 19851460
Genome Biol Evol. 2013;5(7):1376-92
pubmed: 23814129
Cell Res. 2016 Jan;26(1):21-33
pubmed: 26667385
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jan 5;113(1):152-7
pubmed: 26699508
Nucleic Acids Res. 2010 Sep;38(16):e164
pubmed: 20601685
Genetics. 2010 Jun;185(2):611-22
pubmed: 20382834
Am J Hum Genet. 2016 Jan 7;98(1):116-26
pubmed: 26748515
Nature. 2010 Mar 25;464(7288):587-91
pubmed: 20220755
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jul 9;110(28):E2655-62
pubmed: 23803858
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Apr 1;34(4):908-924
pubmed: 28087781
Nat Commun. 2019 Jun 21;10(1):2756
pubmed: 31227702
Mol Ecol. 2014 Aug;23(16):3941-3
pubmed: 25088552
Genome Res. 2005 Jan;15(1):120-5
pubmed: 15590944
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 May 12;112(19):E2415
pubmed: 25886773
Evol Appl. 2018 Sep 08;12(1):29-37
pubmed: 30622633
Genome Res. 2016 Feb;26(2):163-73
pubmed: 26680994
J Mol Cell Biol. 2016 Dec;8(6):542-552
pubmed: 27744377
BMC Genomics. 2014 Nov 07;15:962
pubmed: 25378104
Bioinformatics. 2011 Aug 1;27(15):2156-8
pubmed: 21653522
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e46688
pubmed: 23056405
Mol Ecol. 2014 May;23(9):2210-27
pubmed: 24684265
Anim Genet. 2020 Dec;51(6):866-875
pubmed: 33020910
Nat Genet. 2014 Aug;46(8):919-25
pubmed: 24952747
Nature. 2012 Nov 15;491(7424):393-8
pubmed: 23151582
Science. 2014 Aug 29;345(6200):1074-1079
pubmed: 25170157
Nat Genet. 2017 Feb;49(2):303-309
pubmed: 28024154
PLoS Genet. 2019 May 30;15(5):e1008089
pubmed: 31145731
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Oct 31;114(44):11715-11720
pubmed: 29042518
Nat Plants. 2018 Aug;4(8):512-520
pubmed: 30061748
Nat Commun. 2018 Mar 6;9(1):813
pubmed: 29511174
BMC Bioinformatics. 2014 Nov 25;15:356
pubmed: 25420514
Anim Genet. 2020 Mar;51(2):177-191
pubmed: 31967365
Mol Biol Evol. 2017 Dec 1;34(12):3081-3088
pubmed: 28961939
Mol Ecol. 2016 Mar;25(5):1058-72
pubmed: 26797914
Sci Adv. 2020 May 20;6(21):eaaz5216
pubmed: 32671210
Nat Genet. 2016 Sep;48(9):1083-8
pubmed: 27500524
Cell Res. 2016 May;26(5):556-73
pubmed: 27033669
Curr Biol. 2015 May 18;25(10):1375-80
pubmed: 25891404
Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9
pubmed: 19505943
Nat Genet. 2017 Jun;49(6):959-963
pubmed: 28416819
Evol Appl. 2018 Sep 08;12(1):6-17
pubmed: 30622631
BMC Biol. 2020 Jul 3;18(1):80
pubmed: 32620158
Mol Biol Evol. 2015 Jul;32(7):1880-9
pubmed: 25788450
BMC Biol. 2020 Feb 12;18(1):13
pubmed: 32050971
Genome Biol Evol. 2018 Jan 1;10(1):276-290
pubmed: 29325102
Nature. 2011 Jul 13;475(7357):493-6
pubmed: 21753753
Nat Plants. 2019 Apr;5(4):337-338
pubmed: 30962526
Nat Genet. 2014 Oct;46(10):1081-8
pubmed: 25151355
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Apr 29;111(17):6159-64
pubmed: 24753572
Evol Appl. 2019 Sep 30;13(2):330-341
pubmed: 31993080
Zool Res. 2021 Jan 18;42(1):43-50
pubmed: 33269825
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Dec 30;111(52):E5661-9
pubmed: 25512547