Next Article in Journal
Quantitative Load Dependency Analysis of Local Trabecular Bone Microstructure to Understand the Spatial Characteristics in the Synthetic Proximal Femur
Next Article in Special Issue
Establishment of Wild-Derived Strains of Japanese Quail (Coturnix japonica) in Field and Laboratory Experiments
Previous Article in Journal
Micropropagation Protocol and Genetic Stability of the Salix myrtilloides Plants Cultivated In Vitro
Previous Article in Special Issue
Improving the Accuracy of Diagnosis for Multiple-System Atrophy Using Deep Learning-Based Method
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/biology12020169
biology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Genetic Mutation Sites in ADR Genes on Modern Chickens Produced and Domesticated by Artificial Selection

by
Tomoyoshi Komiyama
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara 259-1193, Kanagawa, Japan
Biology 2023, 12(2), 169; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12020169
Submission received: 7 November 2022 / Revised: 11 January 2023 / Accepted: 19 January 2023 / Published: 20 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Deficiencies of Phenotype Characteristics Based on Environments, Genetics, Disease and Other Factors)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Nine types of complete adrenergic receptor (ADR) gene sequences were analyzed, wherein twenty-four specific mutation sites were found as a result of the artificial selection of Shaver Brown and Shamo chickens. From the analysis, Shamo- and Shaver Brown-specific mutations, and those common to both breeds, could be separated into three groups. The results confirmed that eight mutation sites may be affected by artificial selection. Furthermore, the evolutionary analysis revealed that the identified mutations were not ancestral. These results confirmed that the eight mutations at these sites were artificially selected by domestication and breed specificity. NST population analysis confirmed that there is a difference in the degree of genetic differentiation between the two populations. In particular, the NST rate of ADRA1D (0.064) was most affected by artificial selection. This suggests that these mutations may exert different effects on vasoconstriction, smooth muscles, and the action of the digestive system relevant to the breed’s specific characteristics.

Abstract

Associations between neurotransmitters, adrenergic receptor (ADR) mutations, and behaviors in chickens produced and domesticated by artificial selection remain unclear. This study investigates the association of neurotransmitters and ADR mutations with egg laying and cockfighting—behaviors associated with significantly different breeding backgrounds—in Shaver Brown and Shamo chickens. Accordingly, the whole sequences of nine ADR genes were determined, and nine amino acid-specific mutation sites from five genes (ADRα1A: S365G, ADRα1D: T440N, ADRα2A: D273E, ADRβ1: N443S, S445N, ADRβ3: R342C, Q404L, and P406S) were extracted. Evolutionary analysis showed that these mutations were not ancestrally derived. These results confirm that the mutations at these sites were artificially selected for domestication and are breed specific. NST population analysis confirmed a difference in the degree of genetic differentiation between the two populations in seven genes. The results further confirm differences in the degree of genetic differentiation between the two populations in Shaver Brown (ADRA1B and ADRA1D) and Shamo (ADRA1A and ADRA2B) chickens, indicating that the ADR gene differs between the two breeds. The effects of artificial selection, guided by the human-driven selection of desirable traits, are reflected in adrenaline gene mutations. Furthermore, certain gene mutations may affect domestication, while others may affect other traits in populations or individuals.

1. Introduction

Associations between neurotransmitters, adrenergic receptor (ADR) mutations, and behaviors in modern chickens produced and domesticated by artificial selection remain unclear. The effects of neurotransmitters and adrenergic receptor (ADR) mutations may be related to the behavior of Shamo chickens, bred for cockfighting, and Shaver Brown chickens, bred for egg-laying [1].
The brains of domesticated chickens have been used to study the relationship between monoamine neuron concentrations, aggression, and polymorphism in nine ADR genes [1]. The analysis of monoamines showed significantly higher (p = 0.0087) noradrenaline levels in the Shamo midbrain than in the Shaver Brown midbrain, suggesting that noradrenaline may be associated with the fighting spirit of gamecocks. Brain monoamines include noradrenaline, adrenaline, dopamine, and serotonin [2,3,4,5]. Most monoamine neuron groups are located in the brainstem and control a large area of the brain [6,7,8]. Furthermore, monoamines released from the nerve terminal exert their actions via each monoamine receptor, and some are returned to the nerve terminal via carrier transport [9,10,11,12]. Among the monoamines that play an important role in neurotransmission, only noradrenalin appears to show the most significant difference in terms of concentration between Shamo and Shaver Brown chickens [1].
The genetic analysis of adrenergic receptors has also revealed specific mutations in ADR β2 (T44I and Q232R). This analysis confirmed that the highly aggressive gamecocks have a significantly higher noradrenaline concentration than domesticated chickens and have specific ADRβ2 gene mutations [1]. In addition, evolutionary tree analysis of Phasianidae did not show these mutations in the ancestral species, suggesting that the fighting behavior of gamecocks was inherited from artificial selection and that these genes affect the domestication of chickens [1]. However, the link between domestication and ADR gene mutations produced by artificial selection in either breed has not yet been clarified. Therefore, this study builds on our previous study and reports the effects of ADR gene mutations in Shamo and Shaver Brown chickens.
In this study, we investigate the association of neurotransmitters and ADR with egg laying and cockfighting in Shaver Brown and Shamo chickens, which are behaviors associated with significantly different breeding backgrounds. The results of this study demonstrate the influence of artificial selection in closely related species and confirm its effect on the phenotypes of these breeds.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chicken Samples

Samples from three Shaver Brown chickens (Shaver Brown: N5, N6, and N7) and three gamecocks (Shamo: S6, S7, and S9), which had been improved through artificial selection in cultural environments with different purposes, were used in this study (Figure 1). These samples were collected during our previous investigation of neurotransmitter concentrations in the brain (24 weeks after birth). Significantly higher adrenaline concentrations were observed in the three Shamo chickens, whereas Shaver Brown chickens had significantly lower adrenaline concentrations [1]. DNA was extracted from the blood and sequenced, and the sequences were submitted to the International Nucleotide Sequence Database Collaboration (INSDC). The primers are shown in Table S1. Table 1 lists the sample accession numbers, including Red Jungle Fowl data from previous research on dopamine and aCGH analyses [13]. Female chickens were used because they are invaluable for the genetic improvement of chicken lines. For example, in Shamo, Japan, breeding stock of these valuable species has never been interbred with other species; moreover, breeders almost never trade their breeding stock of females with each other [1,14,15,16]. All animal experiments were conducted in strict compliance with the ethical guidelines of Tokai University, Japan. The experimental protocol was approved by the Animal Investigation Committee of Tokai University, Japan (Approval Nos. 141024 and 152010) [1].
Shamo chickens have a strong fighting spirit and have been used for cockfighting for over 1000 years [2]. However, due to their strong fighting spirit, it is difficult to breed them together with other chickens, and they must be kept in separate cages [14]. Shaver Brown chickens can be bred in flocks [17,18].

2.2. Molecular Phylogeny Analysis of the Complete Nine ADR Genes

A phylogenetic tree was constructed using the unweighted pair group method with arithmetic means (UPGMA). The UPGMA algorithms were incorporated into CLUSTALW-MEGA var. X using distances corrected for multiple hits based on Kimura’s two-parameter model [14,15,19,20]. The phylogenetic trees used a bootstrap analysis of 1000 replications to assess the statistical confidence in the branching order of the trees [14,15]. Evolutionary analysis was performed on the nine ADR genes of Shaver Brown, Shamo, Gallus gallus gallus, Coturnix japonica, Meleagris gallopavo, Numida meleagris, and Phasianus colchicus (Table S2). The approximate lengths of the nine ADR genes for evolutionary analysis were as follows: ADRA1A, 1400 bp; ADRA1B, 1520 bp; ADRA1D, 1530 bp; ADRA2A, 1330 bp; ADRA2B, 1035 bp, ADRA2C; 1340bp, ADRB1;1430 bp; ADRB2, 1190 bp; and ADRB3, 1310 bp. Sites representing gaps in any of the aligned sequences were excluded from the analysis. In addition, a BLAST search at NCBI was performed to confirm mutation sites other than those in the wild birds.

2.3. Analysis of Mutation Site Location Using WoLF PSORT and TMHMM

WoLF PSORT (https://wolfpsort.hgc.jp/, accessed on 29 October 2022) was used to predict the subcellular localization sites of proteins based on their amino acid sequences. TMHMM-2.0 (https://services.healthtech.dtu.dk/service.php?TMHMM-2.0, accessed on 30 September 2022) is a predictive tool for the identification of protein transmembrane helices. Using these tools, it was previously confirmed that ADR is an intracellular 7-transmembrane protein [1,16].

2.4. Index of Nucleotide Differentiation (NST) Analysis of Adrenaline Receptor Genes (Fixation Index)

From the previous study, NST analyses for the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) genes of the three domesticated chicken populations were performed to characterize the evolutionary differentiation of the genes in the three populations. The NST value of DRD4 for Shamo was distinctly larger than the other domesticated chicken populations [16,21].
To measure the degree of evolutionary differentiation between the two domesticated chicken groups, the fixation index (NST) for each of the nine genes was calculated [16]. In addition, an estimate of the heterozygosity per site (R; purine, Y; pyrimidine, M; amino, K; keto, S; strong interaction, and W; weak interaction) was used to calculate the NST (Table S3) [21,22]. The details are described in Komiyama et al. (2014).
The NSTij for the i-th and j-th subpopulation is defined as:
N S T i j = H T i − H S i j H T i      
in which
H T i = 1 − P A i 2 + P T i 2 + P G i 2 + P C i 2
and
H S i j = 1 − P A i j 2 + P T i j 2 + P G i j 2 + P C i j 2 N S T j = ∑ i = 1 n N S T i j n          
for j = 1 to m.
However, the absolute values of the negative values in the present case are so small that it can be safely assumed that they are not significantly different from zero. In addition, the NST can be used not only for coding regions, but also for noncoding regions of the genomes in question when nucleotide sites are segregated. If this method is applied to introns or noncoding regions in which the evolutionary rate is generally higher than that of exons or RNA coding regions, the evolutionary differentiation of closely related populations, such as the present chicken populations, can be studied.

3. Results

3.1. Sequence Analysis of the Nine ADR Subtypes in the Two Breeds

First, the complete gene sequences of the nine adrenergic receptor subtypes, ADRA1A, ADRA1B, ADRA1D, ADRA2A, ADRA2B, ADRA2C, ADRB1, ADRB2, and ADRB3, were determined by direct sequencing.
The results show that there are four unique mutation sites in Shaver Brown chickens, thirteen unique mutation sites in Shamo chickens, and seven unique mutation sites that have common sites between the two species (Table 2 and Table S3). Two mutation sites were in noncoding regions. A total of 24 specific gene mutation sites were identified. Four unique gene mutation sites were identified in Shaver Brown chickens: ADRα1A (S365G), ADRα1B (R258Q, V494A), and ADRβ1 (G444S). The unique mutation sites in Shamo chickens are ADRα1D (L58W, T440N), ADRα2A (V296I), ADRα2B (R138Q, R210H, V292M), ADRβ1 (N443S, S445N, R466C), and ADRβ2 (A15T, T44I, Q232R, T277M). The common mutation sites are ADRα2A (V58I, D273E), ADRβ1 (R403Q), and ADRβ3 (R342C, S396P, Q404L, and P406S). In addition, 23 of these mutations were heterozygous (Table 2 and Table S3). By analyzing these two breeds, it was possible to divide the mutations into three groups based on the nine types of ADR genes. Five mutation sites of ADRβ1 were confirmed among the three groups: Shaver Brown, Shamo, and both breeds (Table 2). Orange indicates Shaver Brown-specific mutations, whereas blue indicates Shamo-specific mutations. Green indicates mutations common to both breeds. No color indicates external mutations (Table S3).

3.2. Prediction of Transmembrane Helices in ADR Proteins

Gene locations in membrane proteins were investigated by WoLF PSORT analysis (Table S4). Each mutation in the proteins encoded by the nine ADR genes was predicted in the integral membrane domains by TMHMM (Table S5). Only two mutations (ADRα2B, V292M; ADRβ2, A15T) were in the extracellular region and did not affect gene function. Other mutations were confirmed in the TMhelix and intracellular region (Table S5). Subsequently, 24 specific amino acid mutation sites from the TMHMM analysis confirmed that the mutations were located in the transmembrane helices (Table 2).

3.3. Identification of Mutation Sites and Evolution-Related Analysis of ADR Gene Mutation Sites with Galliformes

Next, an evolutionary analysis of the 24 specific mutations was conducted. For the identification of mutation sites and evolutionary analysis, the sequences of each ADR gene in Galliformes (Gallus gallus gallus, Coturnix japonica, Meleagris gallopavo, Numida meleagris, and Phasianus colchicus) in the DDBJ/EMBL-EBI/GenBank databases (Table S2) were analyzed. These samples were selected based on previous reports [1,23,24,25]. The presence or absence of mutation sites was confirmed by performing a BLAST search and alignment with the Galliformes sequences registered in the database. Eight specific genes were identified in both breeds (Table 3).

3.4. Evolution-Related Analysis of S365G Mutation Sites (ADRα1A) in Shaver Brown Chickens

The evolutionary pathways of these genes were confirmed using phylogenetic tree analysis. Four unique gene mutations were identified in Shaver Brown chickens: ADRα1A (S365G), ADRα1B (R258Q, V494A), and ADRβ1 (G444S). ADRα1A (S365G) was detected in three Shaver Brown chickens. None of the mutations could be identified in the ancestral pheasant or turkey species (Figure 2). ADRα1B (R258Q, V494A) was only present in individuals N6 and N7. ADRβ1 (G444S) was found only in N6 and was also observed in pheasants. Only ADRα1A (S365G) is considered to have been mutated by human mating and selection for generations, and as domestication progressed, the wild species sites mutated. This artificial selection resulted in the generation of mutations for Shaver Brown chickens. Then, these mutations have been conserved until now. Approximately all mutations occurred in heterozygous sites (R: purine).

3.5. Evolution-Related Analysis of Three Mutation Sites: T440N (ADRα1D), S443N, and N445S (ADRβ1) in Shamo Chickens

There are 13 unique mutation sites in Shamo chickens: ADRα1D (L58W, T440N), ADRα2A (V296I), ADRα2B (R138Q, R210H, V292M), ADRβ1 (S443N, N445S, R466C), and ADRβ2 (A15T, T44I, Q232R, and T277M). ADRβ2 (T44I, Q232R, and R466C) mutations are heritable from Galliformes [1]. ADRα1D (L58W), ADRα2A (V296I), and ADRα2B (R210H) were observed in only one Shamo chicken sample. ADRβ1 (R466C) was also identified in both pheasants and turkeys. ADRα2B (V292M) and ADRβ2 (A15T) were outside the region based on TMHMM. Mutations in ADRα1D (T440N) and ADRβ1 (S443N, N445S) were confirmed in the three Shamo chickens (Figure 3).

3.6. Evolution-Related Analysis of Four Common Mutation Sites: D273E (ADRα1A), S443N, and N445S (ADRβ1) in Shaver Brown and Shamo Chickens

ADRα2A (V58I, D273E), ADRβ1 (R403Q), and ADRβ3 (R342C, S396P, Q404L, P406S) were common mutations specific to the two breeds. Only S396P of ADRβ3 was also found in pheasants and Japanese quails. ADRα2A (V58I) was confirmed in pheasants and ADRβ1 (R403Q) in guinea fowl. Therefore, these three mutations were identified in two of the domesticated chickens, suggesting that they were strongly influenced by artificial selection (Figure 4).

3.7. NST Analysis

The samples for the analysis of the nine ADR genes were obtained from three Shaver Brown chickens (N5, N6, and N7) and three Shamo chickens (S6, S7, and S9) (Table 1). Table 4 shows the total number of base pairs sequenced for the nine ADR genes and their total segregating sites. Most segregation sites were confirmed to be heterozygous sites. NST analysis is an effective analysis method for heterozygous sites.
Next, an NST population analysis was performed for the Shaver Brown and Shamo breeds. Our results were as follows: ADRA1A, 0.007; ADRA1B, 0.031; ADRA1D, 0.064; ADRA2A, 0.006; ADRA2B, 0.075; ADRB1, 0.009; and ADRB2, 0.007 (Table 5 and Tables S6–S12). These data confirm the difference in the degree of genetic differentiation between Shaver Brown and Shamo chickens. In particular, the occurrence of ADRA1B, ADRA1D, and ADRA2B is distinctly greater than that of other ADR genes. In addition, there are no differences in the occurrences of ADRA2C and ADRB3 between the two breeds. Both are considered genes that are not influenced by artificial selection. Thus, there is a difference in the ADR gene expression between the two breeds. Table 4 shows the mutation rate of the segregating sites (%) in the seven ADR genes. ADRA1A, ADRA2A, and ADRA2B have higher rates than the other genes. However, NST rates of the ADRA1D (0.064) gene were the most affected by artificial selection.

4. Discussion

The association between neurotransmitters, adrenergic receptors, mutations, and behaviors in chickens produced and domesticated by artificial selection has not yet been clarified. Changes in the site of a gene causes changes in amino acids, resulting in changes in proteins. Even with the same gene, there is a large difference in the phenotype depending on the mutation site and type of change. The occurrence of these mutations has a significant influence on chicken characteristics. Therefore, this study used Shaver Brown and Shamo chickens, which have significantly different breeding backgrounds for food and cockfighting, respectively.

4.1. NST of the Shaver Brown and Shamo Chickens

First, nine complete ADR sequences were collected from the database. As the first analysis, to clarify genetic differentiation, the NST was measured. The NST population analysis showed that the greatest difference in the degree of genetic differentiation was between the following seven ADR genes: ADRA1A; 0.007, ADRA1B; 0.031, ADRA1D; 0.064, ADRA2A; 0.006, ADRA2B; 0.027, ADRB1; 0.009, and ADRB2; 0.007. In particular, ADRA1B, ADRA1D, and ADRA2B were found to occur more frequently than the other ADR genes. An analysis of heterosites revealed clear differences in the NST values of the ADR genes. However, in ADRA2C and ADRB3, the NST value did not change. This is because these two genes were not affected by artificial selection. On the other hand, seven ADR genetic differentiations among the two breeds were shown to be strongly related to the life characteristics of these breeds as a result of different purposes of artificial selection.

4.2. Amino Acid Mutation Sites of Shaver Brown and Shamo Chickens

Based on the nine ADR gene sequence analyses, twenty-four specific amino acid mutation sites were found in eight ADR genes (Table 1). These results confirm the presence of three groups of different mutation sites in the two chicken breeds. The 24 specific amino acid mutation sites were confirmed using WoLF PSORT and TMHMM analyses. The results of the analyses show that twenty-two out of the twenty-four observed mutations in the eight ADR genes affect the function of membrane proteins. Some traits are associated with sites that were affected by artificial selection. This shows that ADR gene mutations are likely related to behavior (emotion) because they are found inside membrane proteins at most mutation sites [1,26,27,28,29,30]. This suggests a relationship between breed-specific behavior and these mutations. Here, the mutations present in all three individuals of each breed and the ADR genes shared by the two breeds were selected. The five ADR genes have eight mutation sites (Table 2). Mutations with possible individual differences were excluded from this study.
Evolutionary analysis was then performed using the eight sites of these genes to confirm whether these sites are breed specific. These eight sites could not be identified in the ancestral species Phesianus, Cotrunix, Meleagris, or Numida. Therefore, these mutations are considered the original mutations of Shaver Brown and Shamo and are thought to have been fixed in these breeds through artificial selection.

4.3. Effects of Genetic Mutation Sites of ADR in Shaver Brown and Shamo Chickens

ADRs are currently classified into three types—ADRα1, ADRα2, and ADRβ—and three subtypes [31]. ADRα1 (α1A, α1B, and α1D) is involved in vasoconstriction, pupil dilation, sleep, and prostate contraction [32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. ADRα2 (α2A, α2B, and α2C) is involved in various nervous system actions in addition to platelet aggregation and lipolysis suppression [39,40,41,42]. ADRβ1, mainly present in the heart, is involved in increased systolic forces, relaxation of the uterine smooth muscle, and activation of lipolysis [43,44,45]. ADRβ2, existing in bronchi and blood vessels, relaxes various smooth muscles, such as the bronchial smooth muscle, vascular smooth muscles (muscle and liver), and the uterine smooth muscle, as well as controls glucose metabolism [46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. ADRβ3 is present in adipocytes, the gastrointestinal tract, liver, and skeletal muscles and is expected to be present in the postsynaptic membrane of adrenergic nerves [53,54,55,56]; it is also known to affect basal metabolism [57].
Based on these results, ADRα1A and ADRα1B mutations were confirmed in Shaver Brown chickens. In addition, the NST values were large for ADRα1B and ADRα1D. Shamo chickens have mutations in ADRα1D, ADRα2A, ADRα2B, ADRβ1, and ADRβ2. The NST values were high for ADRα1A and ADRα2B. In addition, both breeds have common mutations in ADRα2A, ADRβ1, and ADRβ3.
In our previous study, we found differences in the concentrations of neurotransmitters in the brain, especially noradrenaline [1]. Through each receptor, it can be speculated that the genes that affect vasoconstriction, smooth muscles, and the action of the digestive system were altered by these different neurotransmitter concentrations. The genetic mutation sites in the adrenergic receptor of Shaver Brown and Shamo chickens resulting from artificial selection affect vasoconstriction, smooth muscles, and the action of the digestive system. Gene site mutations have been used as criteria for individual selection with a lack of knowledge of the underlying mechanism by humans and have thus accumulated in specific breeds through artificial selection.
These ADR gene mutations may help elucidate the causes of vascular, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular diseases [58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. Furthermore, they may also assist in elucidating the roles of neurotransmitters in the human brain and their participation in stress-related conditions, such as panic disorder, depression, syncope, and anxiety [68,69,70,71,72,73].
This study will be useful for investigating the relationship between the onset of conditions that affect vasoconstriction, smooth muscles, and the function of the digestive system as a result of narrow-range mating.

5. Conclusions

Nine types of adrenaline gene sequences were analyzed, and the identified twenty-four specific mutation sites were the result of artificial selection. NST population analysis confirmed that there is a difference in the degree of genetic differentiation between ADRA1A, ADRA1B, ADRA1D, and ADRA2B. Moreover, these results confirmed that the eight mutation sites are expected to be affected by artificial selection. Evolutionary analysis indicated the absence of an ancestral mutation. These results confirmed that the mutations at these sites were artificially selected for domestication and are breed specific.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biology12020169/s1, Table S1: List of primers for the nine ADR gene sequences; Table S2: Accession number of nine adrenergic receptors of wild birds; Table S3: DNA and amino acid mutation sites of ADR genes from breeds; Table S4. Protein subcellular localization prediction of nine ADR genes; Table S5: Prediction of transmembrane helices in proteins of nine ADR genes; Table S6: NST population analysis data of ADRA1A; Table S7: NST population analysis data of ADRA1B; Table S8: NST population analysis data of ADRA1D; Table S9: NST population analysis data of ADRA2A; Table S10: NST population analysis data of ADRA2B; Table S11: NST population analysis data of ADRB1; Table S12: NST population analysis data of ADRB2.

Funding

This research was funded by KAKENHI, grant number 20K08498.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the article and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

I thank Yoshio Tateno at the National Institute of Genetics for advice on NST ratios. In addition, I thank the Medical Science College Office of Tokai University for the technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of this study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Komiyama, T.; Yoshikawa, M.; Yokoyama, K.; Kobayashi, H.J. Analysis of the source of aggressiveness in gamecocks. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 7005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Ferry, B.; Gifu, E.-P.; Sandu, I.; Denoroy, L.; Parrot, S. Analysis of microdialysate monoamines, including noradrenaline, dopamine and serotonin, using capillary ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography and electrochemical detection. J. Chromatogr. B 2014, 951, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Herlenius, E.; Lagercrantz, H. Neurotransmitters and neuromodulators during early human development. Early Hum. Dev. 2001, 65, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lövheim, H. A new three-dimensional model for emotions and monoamine neurotransmitters. Med. Hypotheses 2012, 78, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Herlenius, E.; Lagercrantz, H. Development of neurotransmitter systems during critical periods. Exper. Neurol. 2004, 190, 8–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Santana, N.; Artigas, F. Laminar and cellular distribution of monoamine receptors in rat medial prefrontal cortex. Front. Neuroanat. 2017, 11, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Bär, K.J.; de la Cruz, F.; Schumann, A.; Koehler, S.; Sauer, H.; Critchley, H.; Wagner, G. Functional connectivity and network analysis of midbrain and brainstem nuclei. Neuroimage 2016, 134, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Opris, I.; Dai, X.; Johnson, D.M.G.; Sanchez, F.J.; Villamil, L.M.; Xie, S.; Lee-Hauser, C.R.; Chang, S.; Jordan, L.M.; Noga, B.R. Activation of brainstem neurons during mesencephalic locomotor region-evoked locomotion in the cat. Front. Syst. Neurosci. 2019, 13, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Gołembiowska, K.; Kamińska, K. Effects of synthetic cathinones on brain neurotransmitters. In Synthetic Cathinones; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; p. 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sitte, H.H.; Freissmuth, M. Amphetamines, new psychoactive drugs and the monoamine transporter cycle. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2015, 36, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Borroto-Escuela, D.O.; Agnati, L.F.; Bechter, K.; Jansson, A.; Tarakanov, A.O.; Fuxe, K. The role of transmitter diffusion and flow versus extracellular vesicles in volume transmission in the brain neural–glial networks. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2015, 370, 20140183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Jankovic, J.; Clarence-Smith, K. Tetrabenazine for the treatment of chorea and other hyperkinetic movement disorders. Exper. Rev. Neurother. 2011, 11, 1509–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Komiyama, T.; Lin, M.; Ogura, A. aCGH analysis to estimate genetic variations among domesticated chickens. BioMed Res. Int. 2016, 2016, 1794329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Komiyama, T.; Ikeo, K.; Gojobori, T.J.G. Where is the origin of the Japanese gamecocks? Gene 2003, 317, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Komiyama, T.; Ikeo, K.; Gojobori, T.J.G. The evolutionary origin of long-crowing chicken: Its evolutionary relationship with fighting cocks disclosed by the mtDNA sequence analysis. Gene 2004, 333, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Komiyama, T.; Iwama, H.; Osada, N.; Nakamura, Y.; Kobayashi, H.; Tateno, Y.; Gojobori, T. Dopamine receptor genes and evolutionary differentiation in the domestication of fighting cocks and long-crowing chickens. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e101778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Diarra, S.; Devi, A. Response of Shaver Brown laying hens to different feeding space allowances. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2014, 13, 714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Wijedasa, W.; Wickramasinghe, Y.; Vidanarachchi, J.; Himali, S.M. Comparison of egg quality characteristics of different poultry species. J. Agric. Sci. 2020, 12, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Li, M.; Knyaz, C.; Tamura, K. MEGA X: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis across Computing Platforms. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2018, 35, 1547–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kimura, M. A simple method for estimating evolutionary rates of base substitutions through comparative studies of nucleotide sequences. J. Mol. Evol. 1980, 16, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kim, H.; Komiyama, T.; Inomoto, C.; Kamiguchi, H.; Kajiwara, H.; Kobayashi, H.; Nakamura, N.; Terachi, T. Mutations in the mitochondrial ND1 gene are associated with postoperative prognosis of localized renal cell carcinoma. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Nei, M. Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 1973, 70, 3321–3323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Stevens, L.; Lewis, S. Genetics and Evolution of the Domestic Fowl; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  24. Chen, X.H.; Harden, T.K.; Nicholas, R.A. Molecular cloning and characterization of a novel beta-adrenergic receptor. J. Biol. Chem. 1994, 269, 24810–24819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Sawai, H.; Kim, H.L.; Kuno, K.; Suzuki, S.; Gotoh, H.; Takada, M.; Takahata, N.; Satta, Y.; Akishinonomiya, F. The origin and genetic variation of domestic chickens with special reference to junglefowls Gallus G. gallus and G. varius. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e10639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Kvetnansky, R.; Sabban, E.L.; Palkovits, M. Catecholaminergic systems in stress: Structural and molecular genetic approaches. Physiol. Rev. 2009, 89, 535–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Dennis, R.L. Adrenergic and noradrenergic regulation of poultry behavior and production. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 2016, 56, S94–S100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schramm, N.L.; McDonald, M.P.; Limbird, L.E.J. JoN. The α2A-adrenergic receptor plays a protective role in mouse behavioral models of depression and anxiety. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 2001, 21, 4875–4882. [Google Scholar]
  29. Jiang, B.; Cao, B.; Zhou, Z.; Li, Z.; Lv, C.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Li, J. Characterization of chicken α2A-Adrenoceptor: Molecular cloning, functional analysis, and its involvement in ovarian follicular. Development 2022, 13, 1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yanpallewar, S.U.; Fernandes, K.; Marathe, S.V.; Vadodaria, K.C.; Jhaveri, D.; Rommelfanger, K.; Ladiwala, U.; Jha, S.; Muthig, V.; Hein, L.; et al. α2-adrenoceptor blockade accelerates the neurogenic, neurotrophic, and behavioral effects of chronic antidepressant treatment. J. Neurosci. 2010, 30, 1096–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Low, P.A. Primer on the Autonomic Nervous System; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 51–61. [Google Scholar]
  32. Fine, S.R.; Ginsberg, P. Alpha-adrenergic receptor antagonists in older patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: Issues and potential complications. J. Ostiopath. Med. 2008, 108, 333–337. [Google Scholar]
  33. Docherty, J.R. Subtypes of functional α1-adrenoceptor. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2010, 67, 405–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Andersson, K.E.; Gratzke, C. Pharmacology of α1-adrenoceptor antagonists in the lower urinary tract and central nervous system. Nat. Clin. Pract. Urol. 2007, 4, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Schwinn, D.A.; Afshari, N.A. α1-adrenergic receptor antagonists and the iris: New mechanistic insights into floppy iris syndrome. Surv. Ophthalmol. 2006, 51, 501–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Buckwalter, J.B.; Clifford, P.S. The paradox of sympathetic vasoconstriction in exercising skeletal muscle. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 2001, 29, 159–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cirelli, C.; Tononi, G. Gene expression in the brain across the sleep–waking cycle. Brain Res. 2000, 885, 303–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Chen, X.; Meroueh, M.; Mazur, G.; Rouse, E.; Hundal, K.S.; Stamatkin, C.W.; Obukhov, A.G. Phenylephrine, a common cold remedy active ingredient, suppresses uterine contractions through cAMP signalling. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 11666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Bellono, N.W.; Bayrer, J.R.; Leitch, D.B.; Castro, J.; Zhang, C.; O’Donnell, T.A.; Brierley, S.M.; Ingraham, H.A.; Julius, D. Enterochromaffin cells are gut chemosensors that couple to sensory neural pathways. Cell 2017, 170, 185–198.e116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Razy-Krajka, F.; Brown, E.R.; Horie, T.; Callebert, J.; Sasakura, Y.; Joly, J.S.; Kusakabe, T.G.; Vernier, P. Monoaminergic modulation of photoreception in ascidian: Evidence for a proto-hypothalamo-retinal territory. BMC Biol. 2012, 10, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Wang, W.; Li, L.; Chen, N.; Niu, C.; Li, Z.; Hu, J.; Cui, J. Nerves in the tumor microenvironment: Origin and effects. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2020, 8, 601738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Stich, V.; De Glisezinski, I.; Crampes, F.; Hejnova, J.; Cottet-Emard, J.M.; Galitzky, J.; Lafontan, M.; Rivière, D.; Berlan, M. Activation of α2-adrenergic receptors impairs exercise-induced lipolysis in SCAT of obese subjects. Am. J. Physiol. 2000, 279, R499–R504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fiuzat, M.; Neely, M.L.; Starr, A.Z.; Kraus, W.E.; Felker, G.M.; Donahue, M.; Adams, K.; Piña, I.L.; Whellan, D.; O’Connor, C.M. Association between adrenergic receptor genotypes and beta-blocker dose in heart failure patients: Analysis from the HF-ACTION DNA substudy. Eur. J. Heart Fail. 2013, 15, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Bonnet, N.; Benhamou, C.L.; Malaval, L.; Goncalves, C.; Vico, L.; Eder, V.; Pichon, C.; Courteix, D. Low dose beta-blocker prevents ovariectomy-induced bone loss in rats without affecting heart functions. J.Cell Physiol. 2008, 217, 819–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zeng, W.; Pirzgalska, R.M.; Pereira, M.M.; Kubasova, N.; Barateiro, A.; Seixas, E.; Lu, Y.H.; Kozlova, A.; Voss, H.; Martins, G.G.; et al. Sympathetic neuro-adipose connections mediate leptin-driven lipolysis. Cell 2015, 163, 84–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Kang, L.; Nagy, L.E. Chronic ethanol feeding suppresses β-adrenergic receptor-stimulated lipolysis in adipocytes isolated from epididymal fat. Endocrinology 2006, 147, 4330–4338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Chung, L.P.; Waterer, G.; Thompson, P.J. Pharmacogenetics of β2 adrenergic receptor gene polymorphisms, long-acting β-agonists and asthma. Clin. Exp. Allergy 2011, 41, 312–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Hayakawa, Y.; Wang, T.C. Nerves switch on angiogenic metabolism. Science 2017, 358, 305–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Thomsen, M.; Dahl, M.; Tybjærg-Hansen, A.; Nordestgaard, B.G. β2-adrenergic receptor Thr164IIe polymorphism, blood pressure and ischaemic heart disease in 66,750 individuals. J. Intern. Med. 2012, 271, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kim, D.; Tokmakova, A.; Lujan, L.K.; Strzelinski, H.R.; Kim, N.; Najari Beidokhti, M.; Giulianotti, M.A.; Mafi, A.; Woo, J.A.A.; An, S.S.; et al. Identification and characterization of an atypical Gαs-biased β2AR agonist that fails to evoke airway smooth muscle cell tachyphylaxis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2026668118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Park, J.Y.; Lee, N.R.; Lee, K.E.; Park, S.; Kim, Y.J.; Gwak, H.S. Effects of β2-adrenergic receptor gene polymorphisms on ritodrine therapy in pregnant women with preterm labor: Prospective follow-up study. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 12885–12894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wu, F.Q.; Fang, T.; Yu, L.X.; Lv, G.S.; Lv, H.W.; Liang, D.; Li, T.; Wang, C.Z.; Tan, Y.X.; Ding, J.; et al. ADRB2 signaling promotes HCC progression and sorafenib resistance by inhibiting autophagic degradation of HIF1α. J. Hepatol. 2016, 65, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Vechetti Jr, I.J.; Peck, B.D.; Wen, Y.; Walton, R.G.; Valentino, T.R.; Alimov, A.P.; Dungan, C.M.; Van Pelt, D.W.; von Walden, F.; Alkner, B.; et al. Mechanical overload-induced muscle-derived extracellular vesicles promote adipose tissue lipolysis. FASEB J. 2021, 35, e21644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Haji, E.; Al Mahri, S.; Aloraij, Y.; Malik, S.S.; Mohammad, S. Functional characterization of the obesity-linked variant of the β3-adrenergic receptor. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 5721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zafar, U.; Khaliq, S.; Ahmad, H.U.; Manzoor, S.; Lone, K.P. Metabolic syndrome: An update on diagnostic criteria, pathogenesis, and genetic links. Hormones 2018, 17, 299–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Sun, X.; Wang, X.; Zhou, H.C.; Zheng, J.; Su, Y.X.; Luo, F. β3-adrenoceptor activation exhibits a dual effect on behaviors and glutamate receptor function in the prefrontal cortex. Behav. Brain Res. 2021, 412, 113417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. González-Soltero, R.; de Valderrama, M.J.B.F.; González-Soltero, E.; Larrosa, M. Can study of the ADRB3 gene help improve weight loss programs in obese individuals? Endocrinol. Diabetes Nutr. 2021, 68, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Alvarenga, M.E.; Richards, J.C.; Lambert, G.; Esler, M.D. Psychophysiological mechanisms in panic disorder: A correlative analysis of noradrenaline spillover, neuronal noradrenaline reuptake, power spectral analysis of heart rate variability, and psychological variables. Psychosom. Med. 2006, 68, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Komiyama, T.; Hirokawa, T.; Sato, K.; Oka, A.; Kamiguchi, H.; Nagata, E.; Sakura, H.; Otsuka, K.; Kobayashi, H. Relationship between human evolution and neurally mediated syncope disclosed by the polymorphic sites of the adrenergic receptor gene α2B-AR. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Lee, S.H.; Park, J.E.; Ki, C.S.; Park, S.J.; On, Y.K.; Park, K.M.; Kim, J.S. Genetic analysis of cardiac syncope-related genes in korean patients with recurrent neurally mediated syncope. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2022, 9, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Perez, J.M.; Rathz, D.A.; Petrashevskaya, N.N.; Hahn, H.S.; Wagoner, L.E.; Schwartz, A.; Dorn, G.W.; Liggett, S.B. β1-adrenergic receptor polymorphisms confer differential function and predisposition to heart failure. Nat. Med. 2003, 9, 1300–1305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bachman, E.S.; Dhillon, H.; Zhang, C.Y.; Cinti, S.; Bianco, A.C.; Kobilka, B.K.; Lowell, B.B. βAR signaling required for diet-induced thermogenesis and obesity resistance. Science 2002, 297, 843–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Kountz, T.S.; Lee, K.S.; Aggarwal-Howarth, S.; Curran, E.; Park, J.M.; Harris, D.A.; Stewart, A.; Hendrickson, J.; Camp, N.D.; Wolf-Yadlin, A.; et al. Endogenous N-terminal domain cleavage modulates α1D-adrenergic receptor pharmacodynamics. J. Biol. Chem. 2016, 291, 18210–18221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Hawrylyshyn, K.A.; Michelotti, G.A.; Cogé, F.; Guénin, S.P.; Schwinn, D.A. Update on human α1-adrenoceptor subtype signaling and genomic organization. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 2004, 25, 449–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Fan, L.L.; Ren, S.; Zhou, H.; Wang, Y.; Xu, P.X.; He, J.Q.; Luo, D.L. α1D-Adrenergic receptor insensitivity is associated with alterations in its expression and distribution in cultured vascular myocytes. Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 2009, 30, 1585–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Thomas Jr, R.C.; Cowley, P.M.; Singh, A.; Myagmar, B.E.; Swigart, P.M.; Baker, A.J.; Simpson, P.C. The alpha-1A adrenergic receptor in the rabbit heart. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Cavalli, A.; Lattion, A.L.; Hummler, E.; Nenniger, M.; Pedrazzini, T.; Aubert, J.F.; Michel, M.C.; Yang, M.; Lembo, G.; Vecchione, C.; et al. Decreased blood pressure response in mice deficient of the α1b-adrenergic receptor. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1997, 94, 11589–11594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Carhart-Harris, R.L.; Bolstridge, M.; Rucker, J.; Day, C.M.; Erritzoe, D.; Kaelen, M.; Bloomfield, M.; Rickard, J.A.; Forbes, B.; Feilding, A.; et al. Psilocybin with psychological support for treatment-resistant depression: An open-label feasibility study. Lancet Psychiatry 2016, 3, 619–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Pinto-Sanchez, M.I.; Hall, G.B.; Ghajar, K.; Nardelli, A.; Bolino, C.; Lau, J.T.; Martin, F.P.; Cominetti, O.; Welsh, C.; Rieder, A.; et al. Probiotic Bifidobacterium longum NCC3001 reduces depression scores and alters brain activity: A pilot study in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 2017, 153, 448–459.e448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Komiyama, T.; Nagata, E.; Hashida, T.; Sakama, S.; Ayabe, K.; Kamiguchi, H.; Sasaki, A.; Yoshioka, K.; Kobayashi, H. Neurally mediated syncope diagnosis based on adenylate cyclase activity in Japanese patients. PLoS One 2019, 14, e0214733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Hasegawa, M.; Komiyama, T.; Ayabe, K.; Sakama, S.; Sakai, T.; Lee, K.H.; Morise, M.; Yagishita, A.; Amino, M.; Sasaki, A.; et al. Diagnosis and prevention of the vasodepressor type of neurally mediated syncope in Japanese patients. PLoS One 2021, 16, e0251450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Philipp, M.; Brede, M.E.; Hadamek, K.; Gessler, M.; Lohse, M.J.; Hein, L. Placental α2-adrenoceptors control vascular development at the interface between mother and embryo. Nat. Genet. 2002, 31, 311–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jahns, R.; Boivin, V.; Hein, L.; Triebel, S.; Angermann, C.E.; Ertl, G.; Lohse, M.J. Direct evidence for a β 1-adrenergic receptor–directed autoimmune attack as a cause of idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. J. Clin. Investig. 2004, 113, 1419–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biology 12 00169 g001 550
Figure 1. Characteristics of female Shaver Brown and Shamo chickens. Left: Shaver Brown. Right: Shamo [1].
Figure 1. Characteristics of female Shaver Brown and Shamo chickens. Left: Shaver Brown. Right: Shamo [1].
Biology 12 00169 g001
Biology 12 00169 g002 550
Figure 2. Phylogenetic analysis of the adrenergic receptor (ADR) gene ADRα1A.
Figure 2. Phylogenetic analysis of the adrenergic receptor (ADR) gene ADRα1A.
Biology 12 00169 g002
Biology 12 00169 g003 550
Figure 3. Phylogenetic analysis of the adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes ADRα1D (a) and ADR β1 (b).
Figure 3. Phylogenetic analysis of the adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes ADRα1D (a) and ADR β1 (b).
Biology 12 00169 g003
Biology 12 00169 g004a 550Biology 12 00169 g004b 550
Figure 4. Phylogenetic analysis of the adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes ADRα2A (a) and ADRβ3 (b).
Figure 4. Phylogenetic analysis of the adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes ADRα2A (a) and ADRβ3 (b).
Biology 12 00169 g004aBiology 12 00169 g004b
Table
Table 1. Accession numbers of nine adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes in Shaver Brown and Shamo chickens.
Table 1. Accession numbers of nine adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes in Shaver Brown and Shamo chickens.
Chicken BreedSample No.Gene Name
ADRA1AADRA1BADRA1DADRA2AADRA2BADRA2CADRB1ADRB2ADRB3
Shaver BrownN5LC483765.1LC483771.1LC483780.1LC483786.2LC483789.1LC483795.1LC483801.2LC483810.1LC483813.1
N6LC483766.1LC483772.1LC483781.1LC483787.2LC483790.1LC483796.1LC483802.2LC483811.1LC483814.1
N7LC483767.1LC483773.1LC483782.1LC483788.2LC483791.1LC483797.1LC483803.2LC483812.1LC483815.1
ShamoS6LC483768.1LC483774.1LC483777.1LC483783.2LC483792.1LC483798.1LC483804.2LC483807.1LC483816.1
S7LC483769.1LC483775.1LC483778.1LC483784.2LC483793.1LC483799.1LC483805.2LC483808.1LC483817.1
S9LC483770.1LC483776.1LC483779.1LC483785.2LC483794.1LC483800.1LC483806.2LC483809.1LC483818.1
Red Jungle Fowl222LC720799.1LC720797.1LC720798.1LC720800.1LC720804.1LC720803.1LC720796.1LC720802.1LC720801.1
Table
Table 2. The 24 amino acid mutation sites in the nine adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes in Shamo and Shaver Brown chickens.
Table 2. The 24 amino acid mutation sites in the nine adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes in Shamo and Shaver Brown chickens.
Chicken BreedGene NameTotal Mutation Number
ADRα1AADRα1BADRα1DADRα2AADRα2BADRα2CADRβ1ADRβ2ADRβ3
1Shaver BrownS365GR258Q V494A————G444S——4
2Shamo——L58W T440NV296IR138Q
R210H
V292M		—N443S
S445N
R466C		A15T
T44I
Q232R
T277M		—13
3Both breeds———V58I D273E——R403Q—R342C
S396P Q404L P406S		7
A, alanine; C, cysteine; D, aspartic acid; E, glutamic acid; G, glycine; H, histidine; I, isoleucine; L, leucine; M, methionine; N, asparagine; P, proline; Q, glutamine; R, arginine; S, serine; T, threonine; V, valine.
Table
Table 3. The eight amino acid mutation sites in the five adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes in Shamo and Shaver Brown chickens.
Table 3. The eight amino acid mutation sites in the five adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes in Shamo and Shaver Brown chickens.
Chicken BreedGene Name
ADRα1AADRα1DADRα2AADRβ1ADRβ3
1Shaver BrownS365G————
2Shamo—T440N—N443S, S445N—
3Both breeds——D273E—R342C, Q404L, P406S
S, serine; G, glycine; T, threonine; N, asparagine; D, aspartic acid; E, glutamic acid; R, arginine; C, cysteine; Q, glutamine, L, leucine; P, proline.
Table
Table 4. The total number of base pairs sequenced for the nine adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes and their total segregating sites for the index of nucleotide differentiation (NST) analysis.
Table 4. The total number of base pairs sequenced for the nine adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes and their total segregating sites for the index of nucleotide differentiation (NST) analysis.
Chicken BreedGene Name
ADRA1AADRA1BADRA1DADRA2AADRA2BADRA2CADRB1ADRB2ADRB3
Shaver Brown and Shamo (bp)140415241536133510381341143411941314
Segregating sites
and mutation rate (%)		14 (1.0)9 (0.59)7 (0.46)22 (1.65)10 (0.96)1 (0.07)8 (0.56)9 (0.75)9 (0.68)
Heterozygous sites14662291699
Table
Table 5. Index of nucleotide differentiation (NST) analysis for the nine adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes between the two chicken breeds.
Table 5. Index of nucleotide differentiation (NST) analysis for the nine adrenergic receptor (ADR) genes between the two chicken breeds.
Chicken BreedGene Name
ADRA1AADRA1BADRA1DADRA2AADRA2BADRA2CADRB1ADRB2ADRB3
Shamo0.0170.006−0.027−0.0040.0270−0.003−0.0070
Shaver Brown0.0010.0310.0640.006−0.00900.0090.0070
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Komiyama, T. Effects of Genetic Mutation Sites in ADR Genes on Modern Chickens Produced and Domesticated by Artificial Selection. Biology 2023, 12, 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12020169

AMA Style

Komiyama T. Effects of Genetic Mutation Sites in ADR Genes on Modern Chickens Produced and Domesticated by Artificial Selection. Biology. 2023; 12(2):169. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12020169

Chicago/Turabian Style

Komiyama, Tomoyoshi. 2023. "Effects of Genetic Mutation Sites in ADR Genes on Modern Chickens Produced and Domesticated by Artificial Selection" Biology 12, no. 2: 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12020169

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop