Analysis of Genetic Characteristics and Probability of Individual Discrimination in Korean Indigenous Chicken Brands by Microsatellite Marker

Abstract

Microsatellite markers have been a useful genetic tool in determining diversity, relationships and individual discrimination studies of livestock. The level of genetic diversity, relationships among two Korean indigenous chicken brand populations (Woorimatdag: WR, Hanhyup3: HH) as well as two pure populations (White Leghorn: WL, Rhode Island Red: RIR) were analyzed, based on 26 MS markers. A total of 191 distinct alleles were observed across the four chicken populations, and 47 (24.6%) of these alleles were unique to only one population. The mean HExp and PIC were estimated as 0.667 and 0.630. Nei's DA genetic distance and factorial correspondence analysis (FCA) showed that the four populations represented four distinct groups. However, the genetic distance between each Korean indigenous chicken brand (WR, HH) and the pure population (WL, RIR) were threefold that among the WR and HH. For the STRUCTURE analyses, the most appropriate number of clusters for modeling the data was determined to be three. The expected probabilities of identity among genotypes of random individuals (PI) were calculated as 1.17×10-49 (All 26 markers) and 1.14×10 -15 , 7.33×10 -20 (9, 12 with the highest PI value, respectively). The results indicated that the brand chicken breed traceability system employing the own highest PI value 9 to 12 markers, and might be applicable to individual identification of Korean indigenous chicken brand.

Discrimination of the commercial Korean native chicken population using microsatellite markers

“…On the other hand, close genetic distances of the WM1 population with the CoL, Hh, and RIR populations (0.1375, 0.2453, and 0.2478, respectively) were observed. These results support the findings by Suh et al [ 25 ] that the WM1 and Hh populations have the same founder breeds as their genetic distances are close (Table 3 ). The WM2 population, however, has a genetic distance >0.690 indicating that different crossing combinations were applied between the WM2 and WM1 populations.…”

“…This indicated that the WM1 and Hh populations originated from the same breed/ancestor for constructing the populations. Furthermore, according to the genetic distance values, our marker combination has a stronger discriminating power than that in the findings by Suh et al [ 25 ]. On the other hand, close genetic distances of the WM1 population with the CoL, Hh, and RIR populations (0.1375, 0.2453, and 0.2478, respectively) were observed.…”

“…The genetic distance between O chicken population and WM2 was the highest (0.791), followed by RIR and WM2 (0.788) (Table 3 ). Similarly, Suh et al [ 25 ] reported the lowest genetic distance (0.092) between the WM1 and Hh populations and the highest genetic distance (0.690) between the RIR and White Leghorn breeds. This indicated that the WM1 and Hh populations originated from the same breed/ancestor for constructing the populations.…”

“…Of the 30 selected markers, six (GCT0016, MCW0029, MCW0063, MCW0087, MCW0264, and MCW0104) were used in the study by Seo et al [ 14 ]. Furthermore, four markers (LEI0135, MCW0111, MCW0145, and MCW0330) were investigated by Suh et al [ 25 ] for the discrimination of four different breeds, including the WM1 population. Our marker combination is more polymorphic than that in the study by Suh et al [ 25 ].…”

“…Furthermore, four markers (LEI0135, MCW0111, MCW0145, and MCW0330) were investigated by Suh et al [ 25 ] for the discrimination of four different breeds, including the WM1 population. Our marker combination is more polymorphic than that in the study by Suh et al [ 25 ]. In addition, of the 30 markers in this study, six were among the ISAG recommended markers (ADL0268, LEI0094, MCW0104, MCW0111, MCW0123, and MCW0330).…”