Printer Friendly

Association between PON1 gene SNPs and growth and carcass traits in beef cattle.

ABSTRACT : Paraoxonase-1 (PON1), like lipoprotein lipase (LPL), plays a key role in the metabolism and physiology of mammalian growth. The objectives of this study were to estimate the allele and genotype frequencies at the PON1/EcoRV and PON1/AluI loci in three genetic groups of beef cattle and to determine associations between these polymorphisms and growth and carcass traits. Genotyping was performed on 30 Angus, 32 Hereford and 26 Simmental. The association analysis was carried out using the GLM procedure of SAS 9.1 and the least squares means of the genotypes were compared by the Tukey's test. Animals with AG genotype at the PON1/EcoRV locus had higher weight at the time of entry into the fattening corrals (329.97[+ or -]6.08 kg) and close to the time of slaughter (577.56[+ or -]8.32 kg) and net meat weight (275.89[+ or -]4.05 kg) and fitted tenderness (3.10[+ or -]0.19 kg) (p<0.05). Animals with AA genotype at the PON1/AluI locus had higher weight at the time of entry (333.37[+ or -]8.93 kg) and slaughter (576.82[+ or -]13.18 kg) and net meat weight (275.49[+ or -]6.43 kg) and average daily gain (0.68[+ or -]0.02 kg/d) (p<0.05). The meat color score was also significantly higher (p<0.05). Between genotypes and breeds, there were significant differences observed except for TBW, REMG, MBS, REA and MCS. As a metabolism gene, genotypes of the SNPs of PON1 gene might be reflecting BFT directly, such as [A.sub.e][A.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] genotype in this experiment. (Key Words : Beef Cattle, PON1 Gene, SNPs, Growth Traits, Carcass Traits)

INTRODUCTION

Like lipoprotein lipase (LPL), paraoxonase-1 (PON1) plays a key role in the metabolism and physiology of mammalian growth (van Himbergen et al., 2006). Recently, the crystal structure of a recombinant human PON variant was elucidated which showed a six-bladed [beta]-propeller with each blade consisting of four [beta]-sheets, and contained in the central tunnel of the enzyme are two calcium atoms needed for the stabilization of the structure and the catalytic activity. Three [alpha] helices, located at the top of the propeller, are involved in anchoring to the HDL particle (Harel et al., 2004). The clarification of the crystal structure led to more understanding of the catalytic mechanisms underlying PON1's wide substrate range (Harel et al., 2004). Further investigations have suggested that the hydrolytic activity towards lactones (cyclic esters) is the native activity (Khersonsky et al., 2005). The molecular functions were related to aryltriphosphatase activity, phosphotriesterase activity, A-esterase activity, paraoxon hydrolase activity and paraoxonase activity. For example, catalysis of the hydrolysis of various bonds, e.g. C-O, C-N, C-C, phosphoric anhydride bonds, etc. Hydrolase is the systematic name for any enzyme of EC class 3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=1688 20). The PON1 protein has the ability of cooperating with insulin, steapsin, growth hormone, lipoprotein lipase and leptin (Curia et al., 2005; 2006). Essentially, it enables the directed movement of lipids into, out of, within or between cells (Jonathan et al., 2003; Paul et al., 2006). For the relationships between PONs, Sarghera et al. (2008) demonstrated that genetic variation in PON3 affects serum PON1 activity independently of the known effect of the PON1 genetic variation. PON1 levels are important in determining resistance to specific organophosphorus compounds; the time course of appearance of PON1 in newborns is of great interest. The mouse PON1 expression level plateaus between 6 to 15 months of age, and the age at which PON1 levels plateau is quite variable among individuals (Cole et al., 2003). Some studies indicated that polymorphisms of the PON1 gene may relate to birth weight in humans (Ye et al., 2002; Hakanen et al., 2006). Low PON1 activity during early development may be involved in the enhanced sensitivity of the young toward organophosphate toxicity.

Despite the physiological function of the PONs gene being focused on cardiovascular diseases in humans, association between the PON2 gene and birth weight of neonates with preterm have been detected (Busch et al., 1999; Liang et al., 2002; Lucio et al., 2006). Based on its function in lipid metabolism, this work was carried out to identify the association between polymorphism and bovine economic traits. Although previous research has focused on growth hormone (GH), insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and growth hormone releasing hormone (GHRH) (Curi et al., 2005), leptin gene (Shin et al., 2007), Carboxypeptidase E (CPE) (Shin et al., 2007), there was little information about this gene in the bovine. Questions then arose about its function in growth, lipoprotein and fat metabolism in beef cattle and whether it is an important candidate gene. To address the last question, association analysis was carried out to detect the effects of the gene in beef cattle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Animals

For the experiment, blood was collected from 86 bulls belonging to three different breeds differing in body size, including 30 Angus, 32 Hereford and 26 Simmental. These animals represented the progeny of 45 different bulls. This study was carried out in the experimental feedlot facility of the Sanyuan company in Beijing. Calves were weaned at 210 days of age using a creep-feeding system and at the beginning of the experiment they were approximately 730 days old. The animals were identified individually, treated against endo- and ectoparasites, divided into groups of five animals each in confinement corrals according to breed and size, fed diets formulated according to the guidelines of the National Research Council (NRC, 1996) for a mean daily weight gain higher than 1.2 kg and, according to the breed, the animals were fed appropriately. After entering the corrals, the animals were allowed to adapt for a period of about 20 days. The animals were slaughtered at a commercial slaughter facility after an average confinement period of 348 days, with an average age of 2.5 years. The animals were weighed at the time of entry into the fattening corrals (BW1) and again close to the time of slaughter (SBW). The average daily gain (ADG) during the finishing period was calculated. Rib eye area (REA) and backfat thickness (BFT) were assessed by ultrasound using the method of Perkins, as modified by Gresham (1998), during the last weight measurement. Hot carcass weight (HCW) and tenderness (TN) were measured after slaughter. Net meat weight (NMW), total bone weight (TBW), meat color score (MCS) (grade = 1-5), marbling score (MBS) (grade = 1-6) and fat color score (FCS) (grade = 1-6) were measured at carcass dissection time.

DNA extraction and genotyping

Five milliliters of total blood was collected into a vacuum tube containing 7.5-mg EDTA by puncturing the left jugular vein. Genomic DNA was extracted from a 300-A1 aliquot of total blood using the standard method with hydroxybenzene-chloroform. The preliminary DNA sequence was amplified from bovine genomic DNA using the primer Exon6 derived from the bovine EST-contig. Starting from the known sequence, a primer walking strategy was used to identify three overlapping genomic fragments for further polymorphism search. The primer walking involved one primer designed from the bovine EST-contig and the other generated from the intron region determined with primer pair Forward: 3'-TTCAAGCCTCCCTCAGACCAACT-5', Reverse: 3'-AGCATGTGACTTCCAAAGACCCC-5'. The PCR temperature profile was 95[degrees]C for 5 min followed by 35 cycles for 30 s at 94[degrees]C, 30 s annealing at 57.3[degrees]C, 30 s at 72[degrees]C and a final extension of 10 min at 72[degrees]C. The fragment was amplified in a PTC-200 Peltier Thermal Cycler (Bio-RAD, USA). The PCR fragments were sequenced directly with the same primers used for the amplification.

Statistical analysis

The genotype and allele frequencies at each locus were calculated and differences in the allele frequencies within and between genetic groups and Hardy-Weinberg equilibria were determined by using the POPGENE32 Version 1.31 software (Francis, 1999).

For the association studies, the traits of interest were analyzed using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of the SAS 9.1 program (Statistical Analysis System, 1999) and the least squares means of the genotypes were compared by the Tukey's test. The linear model used to fit the quantitative traits included, in addition to the genotype effect, the contemporary group effect which considered the effects of breeds and groups as follows:

[Y.sub.ijk] = [mu]+[G.sub.i]+G[C.sub.j]+[e.sub.ijk]

where [Y.sub.ijk] = traits of growth and carcass, [mu] = overall mean, [G.sub.i] = fixed effect of the ith genotype, G[C.sub.j] = fixed effect of the jth contemporary group, and [e.sub.ijk] = random error. Genotypes with small sample sizes and low frequencies were excluded from the analysis for the purpose of accuracy. The maternal effect was not included in the model since the number of genotyped animals which were progeny of the same mother was very small.

RESULTS

Genotype and allele frequencies

Two genetic variants (A and G) at the PON1/EcoRV locus were observed in the genetic groups studied (Table 1). PAGE was carried out for the amplification of its product, and three RFLP patterns were observed. Three genotypes designated AA, GG, and AG, respectively were observed. Genotype GG was characterized by the presence of two restriction fragments of 226 and 150 bp, while genotype AA was determined by the presence of a single 376 bp fragment. AG individuals presented three fragments of 376, 226 and 150 bp. The frequency of allele A at the PON1/EcoRV locus was significantly higher (p<0.05) than that of allele G in the Simmental genetic group. A significant difference (p<0.05) in allele frequencies was observed between the cattle groups. All three genotypes were observed in all groups.

Two different alleles (A and G) were found at the PON1/AluI locus (Table 2). Agarose gel electrophoresis was carried out for the amplification product of it and three RFLP patterns were observed. Three genotypes designated AA, GG, and AG, respectively were observed. Genotype AA was characterized by the presence of three restriction fragments of 153, 134 and 89 bp. Genotype GG was determined by the presence of a single 376 bp fragment. Heterozygous individuals (AG) should present four fragments of 376, 153, 134 and 89 bp, but the 89 bp fragment was not presented since it may be overlapped by the dimer. The allele frequencies of the PON1/AluI polymorphism were observed to be in equilibrium among and within the three genetic groups studied. All three genotypes were observed in all groups.

Association analysis

Table 3 shows a comparison of the least squares means and their respective standard errors of quantitative growth and carcass traits, which had significant differences involving the genotypes at the PON1/EcoRV and PON1/ AluI loci, respectively.

All genotypes AA, AG and GG were considered in the association analysis between PON1/EcoRV locus genotypes and production traits. Significant associations were observed between genotypes and growth traits BW1, SBW and NMW (p<0.05) and carcass trait TN (p<0.05), with AG animals being considered higher than AA and GG animals for BW1, SBW, NMW and TN. There were no significant associations with HCW, TBW, REMW, ADG, REA, BFT, MBS, MCS and FCS.

The association analysis involving the PON1/AluI locus genotypes and traits of interest were significant between genotypes and BW1, SBW, NMW, ADG and MCS (p<0.05). AA and AG animals were considered to be more favorable than the GG animals for these traits. No other significant associations between genotypes and quantitative traits were observed.

Table 4, 5, 6 and 7 show the comparison of the least square means of growth and carcass traits involving among breeds, between genotypes and breeds and dual genotype analysis of the PON1/EcoRV and PON1/AluI loci.

Among breeds it was observed that the specific beef breeds (e.g. Angus and Hereford in this paper) had higher growth quality than dual purpose breeds (e.g. Simmental) and in carcass traits Simmental presented lower quality except for BFT, TN, BMS, MCS and FCS. Between genotypes and breeds, there were significant differences observed except for TBW, REMG, MBS, REA and MCS. From the linkage analysis, the difference in BW1 may be indicating which haploid has potential early growth ability while, with regards to its role as a metabolism gene, genotypes of the SNPs of PON1 might be reflecting BFT directly, such as the [A.sub.e][A.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] genotype in this experiment.

DISCUSSION

Statistical model

In fitting the model, the maternal effects and the permanent environmental effects were excluded since the number of genotyped animals which were progeny of the same cow was very small, and all the animals were fed under the same environment. The small sample size also influenced the interaction analysis between loci in the same groups, and this would be the focus in a further study. Also, all the animals were fed in a feedlot, so the effects of the environment were ignored in the statistical model.

PON1/EcoRV polymorphism

The PON1/EcoR V polymorphism is an A (allele A) to G (allele G) transition located in the exon6 147 of the PON1 gene. In this work, we calculated the frequencies of the alleles and genotypes in the three cattle genetic groups (Table 1). There were two alleles, A and G, and three genotypes AA, AG and GG. The Chi-square test indicated that the allele frequencies were in disequilibrium between groups, and within the group of Simmental (p = 0.022307). This might be the result of selection pressure. However, the possibility of sampling error should be considered. For the fitted model, PON1/EcoRV genotypes had no unique effects, while the genetic breed effects were important for all traits.

The present association results demonstrated that the AG genotype was superior in growth and carcass traits. Animals with AG genotype generally had high body weight at the beginning of confinement, indicating the possibility that the animals were already heavier at weaning. At the end of the confinement, these animals continued to be heavier, although weight gain was not significantly different statistically during the finishing period. This higher live weight of the AG animals resulted in larger net meat weight. Tenderness of the AG (3.10[+ or -]0.19) animals was significantly better than those of the AA (3.73[+ or -]0.23) and GG (3.31[+ or -]0.19) animals.

PON1/AluI polymorphism

The PON1/AluI polymorphism is an A (allele A) to G (allele G) transition located in the exon6 162 of the PON1 gene. In this work, we calculated the frequencies of the alleles and genotypes in the three groups (Table 2). There were two alleles, A and G, and three genotypes AA, AG and GG. The Chi-square test indicated that the allele frequencies were in equilibrium between groups and within all three groups.

We obtained frequencies of 0.4824 for allele A and 0.5176 for allele G in total for the three genetic groups, and observed significant associations of AA and AG animals with higher body weight at the beginning of confinement, at slaughter and with net meat weight (p<0.05), and better meat color score than GG animals in beef cattle. Comparing the genotypes at this locus, AA animals might be the superior genotype for growth and carcass traits, because AA animals had high growth ability and carcass quality besides body weight at the beginning of confinement.

At the same age, the difference of BW1 among breeds, between genotypes and breeds, and in linkage analysis may be due to two reasons, earlier nutrition and breeds. However, the difference among linkage genotypes of the carcass trait BFT could be reflecting the haploid genotype effects on this trait.

The PONs gene family was used to identity the relationship with birth weight and shortened gestation in the neonate (Busch et al., 1999). The results indicated that PON2 Ser311Ser in neonates was significantly associated with shortened gestation (Liang et al., 2002). Further study indicated that PON1 and PON3 may exert their physiological roles through distinct substrates but could contribute synergistically towards preventing cardiovascular disease (Sarghera et al., 2008). Its possible involvement in human longevity, focusing on the relationship between genetic polymorphisms and enzyme activity and its capability to counteract oxidative stress, was based on the free radical theory of aging (Marchegiani et al., 2008). With slow-activity PON1 or PON1192, urinary diethyl phosphates (Sigma DEPs) were associated with lower birth weight and dimethyl phosphates (Sigma DMPs) with shorter birth length (Wolff et al., 2007). These results may suggest that PONs should have a similar function in animals and, based on this, we may choose the PONs polymorphisms to predict the results of early selection in animals.

CONCLUSION

The association analysis between genotypes at the PON1/EcoRV and PONI/AluI loci and growth and carcass traits indicated that animals with AG genotype at the PON1/EcoRV locus could be selected for genetic gain in tenderness, and for net meat weight; animals with AA genotype at the PON1/AluI locus could be selected for genetic gain in growth traits and meat color score. The [A.sub.e][A.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] genotype may be used as the marker for the selection of the BFT trait. The PON1 gene might play a major role in the traits of interest. Further studies should be conducted to check the effects of these two loci in the expression pattern of the PONI gene.

Received December 9, 2007; Accepted March 26, 2008

REFERENCE

Busch, C. P., D. D. Ramdath, S. Ramsewak and R. A. Hegele. 1999. Association of PON2 variation with birth weight in Trinidadian neonates of South Asian ancestry. Pharmacogenet. 9(3):351-356.

Cheong, H. S., D. Yoon, L H. Kim, B. L. Park, H. W. Lee, C. S. Han, E. M. Kim, H. Cho, E R. Chung, I. Cheong and H. D. Shin. 2007. Titin-cap (TCAP) polymorphisms associated with marbling score of beef. Meat Sci. 77:257-263.

Cole, T. B., R. L. Jampsa, B. J. Walter, T. L. Arndt, R. J. Richter, D. M. Shih, A. Tward, A. J. Lusis, R. M. Jack, L. G. Costa and C. E. Furlong. 2003. Expression of human paraoxonase (PON1) during development. Pharmacogenet. 13(6):357-364.

Curi, R. A., H. N.de Oliveira, A. C. Silveira and C. R. Lopes. 2005. Association between IGF-I, IGF-IR and GHRH gene polymorphisms and growth and carcass traits in beef cattle. Livest. Prod. Sci. 94:159-167.

Curi, R. A., D. A. Palmieri, L. Suguisawa, A. L. J. Ferraz, H. N. de Oliveira, L. R. Furlan, A. C. Silveira and C. R. Lopes. 2006. Effects of GHR gene polymorphisms on growth and carcass traits in Zebu and crossbred beef cattle. Livest. Sci. 101:94-100.

Francis, C. Y. and C. Y. Rong. 1999. POPGENE32 VERSION 1.31-Microsoft Window-based Freeware for Population Genetic Analysis. University of Alberta and Tim Boyle, Centre for International Forestry Research. August

Hakanen, M., H. Lagstrom, T. Kaitosaari, H. Niinikoski, K. Nanto-Salonen, E. Jokinen, L. Sillanmaki, J. Viikari, T. Ronnemaa and O. Simell. 2006. Development of overweight in an atherosclerosis prevention trial starting in early childhood. Int. J. Obes (Lond), 30(4):618-626.

Harel, M., A. Aharoni and L. Gaidukov. 2004. Structure and evolution of the serum paraoxonase family of detoxifying and anti-atherosclerotic enzymes. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 11:412-419.

Jonathan, Q. Purnell, S. W. David, B. Patricia and E. C. David. 2003. Ghrelin levels correlate with insulin levels, insulin resistance, and high-density lipoprotein cholestero but not with gender, menopausal status, or cortiso levels in humans. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab, 88(12):5747-5752.

Khersonsky, O. and D. S. Tawfik. 2005. Structure-reactivity studies of serum paraoxonase PON1 suggest that its native activity is lactonase. Biochem. 44:6371-6382.

Liang, H. Y., B. Y. Wu, D. F. Chen, F. H. Y. Yang, Hu, L. Chen and X. P. Xu. 2002. Association of CYP2E1 and PON2311 polymorphisms in neonates with preterm. Acta. Genetica. Sinica. 29(10):847-853.

Lucio, G. C., B. C. Toby and E. F. Clement. 2006. Gene-environment interactions: paraoxonase (PON1) and sensitivity to organophosphate toxicity. Lab Med. 37(2):109-114.

Marchegiani, F., M. Marra, F. Olivieri, M. Cardelli, R. W. James, M. Boemi and C. Franceschi. 2008. Paraoxonase 1: Genetics and activities during aging. Rejuvenation Res. 11:113-127.

National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). 1999. OMIM Detailed, available from URL: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=168820

NRC. 1996. Nutrient requirement of beef cattle. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA.

Paul, H. B. 2006. The inflammatory consequences of psychologic stress: Relationship to insulin resistance, obesity, atherosclerosis and diabetes mellitus, type II. Medical Hypotheses, 67:879-891.

Sanghera, D. K., S. Manzi, R. L. Minster, P. Shaw, A. Kao, F. Bontempo and M. I. Kamboh. 2008. Genetic variation in the Paraoxonase-3 (PON3) Gene is Associated with Serum PON1 Activity. Annals of Human Genetics 72:72-81.

SAS 9.1, Statistical Analysis System, System for Windows. Copyright (c) 2002-2003 by SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.

Shin, S. C. and E. R. Chung. 2007. Association of SNP marker in the leptin gene with carcass and meat quality traits in Korean cattle. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 20(1):1-6.

Shin, S. C. and E. R. Chung. 2007. SNP detection of carboxypeptidase E gene and its association with meat quality and carcass traits in Korean cattle. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 20(1):328-333.

van Himbergen, T. M., van L. J. H. Tits, M. Roest1 and A. F. H. Stalenhoef. 2006. The story of PON1: how an organophosphate-hydrolysing enzyme is becoming a player in cardiovascular medicine. The Netherlands Journal of Medicine 64(2):34-38.

Wolff, M. S., S. Engel, G. Berkowitz, S. Teitelbaum, J. Siskind, D. B. Barr and J. Wetmur. 2007. Prenatal pesticide and PCB exposures and birth outcomes. Pediatr Res. 61(2):243-250.

Ye, L. H., B.Y. Wu, D. F. Chen, F. Yang, H. Y. Hu, L. Chen and X. P. Xu. 2002. Association 0f CYP2E1 and PON2 311 Polymorphisms in Neonates with Preterm. Acta Genetica Sinica. 29(10): 847-853.

* The work was supported by the Chinese National Program for High Technology Research and Development (No.2006AA 10Z197), and the Eleventh "Five-Year" National Science and Technology Support Project (No.2006BAD01A10).

A. G. Ji (1,2), Y. H. Huai (1,2), Z. K. Zhou (2), J. Y. Li (2), L. P. Zhang (2), S. Z. Xu (2), ** X. Gao (2), H. Y. Ren (2) and J. B. Chen (2)

(1) College of Animal Science and Technology, Northwest Sci-Tech University of Agriculture and Forestry Shaanxi, Yangling 712100, China

(2) Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100094, China.

** Corresponding Author: S. Z. Xu. Tel: +86-010-62890940, Fax: +86-010-62817806, E-mail: simmenta@vip.sina.com
Table 1. Allele and genotype frequencies at the PON1/EcoR locus
obtained in the three breeds

 Allele frequency
Breed Number

 A G

Angus 30 0.5167 (a) 0.4833 (a)
Hereford 30 0.5167 (a) 0.4833 (a)
Simmental 28 0.5400 (a) 0.4600 (b)
Total 88 0.5235 (a) 0.4765 (b)

 Genotype frequency
Breed

 AA AG GG

Angus 0.2627 0.5079 0.2294
Hereford 0.2627 0.5079 0.2294
Simmental 0.2865 0.5069 0.2065
Total 0.2726 0.5018 0.2255

 [chi square]
Breed PIC H test (p)

Angus 0.3747 0.5000 0.9308
Hereford 0.3747 0.3667 0.1213
Simmental 0.3734 0.2800 0.0223
Total 0.3744 0.3882 0.0357

Frequencies with different superscripts differ (p<0.05).

Table 2. Allele and genotype frequencies at the PON1/AluI locus
obtained in the three breeds

 Allele frequency
Breed Number
 A G

Angus 30 0.4500 0.5500
Hereford 30 0.5667 0.4333
Simmental 28 0.4200 0.5800
Total 88 0.4824 0.5176

Breed Genotype frequency
 AA AG GG

Angus 0.1983 0.5043 0.2983
Hereford 0.3169 0.4994 0.1836
Simmental 0.1714 0.4971 0.3314
Total 0.2312 0.5023 0.2665

Breed [chi square]
 PIC H test (p)

Angus 0.3725 0.5667 0.4836
Hereford 0.3705 0.5333 0.7052
Simmental 0.3685 0.4400 0.5571
Total 0.3747 0.5176 0.7774

Table 3. LSM ([+ or -] standard error) of growth and carcass traits
obtained for the genotypes at the EcoRV and AluI loci

 Growth and carcass traits

Locus Genotype BW1 (kg)

PON1/EcoRV AA(30) 309.97 [+ or -] 6.19 (a)
 AG(32) 329.97 [+ or -] 6.08 (b)
 GG(26) 311.54 [+ or -] 6.49 (a)
PON1/AluI AA(19) 333.37 [+ or -] 8.93 (a)
 AG(46) 320.85 [+ or -] 4.64 (a)
 GG(23) 289.48 [+ or -] 6.63 (b)

 Growth and carcass traits

Locus Genotype SBW (kg)

PON1/EcoRV AA(30) 555.72 [+ or -] 11.79 (a)
 AG(32) 577.56 [+ or -] 8.32 (b)
 GG(26) 553.92 [+ or -] 9.19 (a)
PON1/AluI AA(19) 576.82 [+ or -] 13.18 (a)
 AG(46) 566.01 [+ or -] 7.46 (ab)
 GG(23) 546.07 [+ or -] 11.76 (b)

 Growth and carcass traits

Locus Genotype NMW (kg)

PON1/EcoRV AA(30) 265.19 [+ or -] 5.71 (a)
 AG(32) 275.89 [+ or -] 4.05 (b)
 GG(26) 264.06 [+ or -] 4.44 (a)
PON1/AluI AA(19) 275.49 [+ or -] 6.43 (a)
 AG(46) 270.08 [+ or -] 3.61 (ab)
 GG(23) 260.52 [+ or -] 5.67 (b)

 Growth and carcass traits

Locus Genotype ADG (kg)

PON1/EcoRV AA(30) 0.66 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)
 AG(32) 0.67 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)
 GG(26) 0.65 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)
PON1/AluI AA(19) 0.68 [+ or -] 0.02 (a)
 AG(46) 0.67 [+ or -] 0.01 (a)
 GG(23) 0.63 [+ or -] 0.01 (b)

 Growth and carcass traits

Locus Genotype TN (kg)

PON1/EcoRV AA(30) 3.73 [+ or -] 0.23 (a)
 AG(32) 3.10 [+ or -] 0.19 (b)
 GG(26) 3.31 [+ or -] 0.19 (ab)
PON1/AluI AA(19) 3.36 [+ or -] 0.34 (a)
 AG(46) 3.25 [+ or -] 0.14 (a)
 GG(23) 3.65 [+ or -] 0.21 (a)

 Growth and carcass traits

Locus Genotype MCS

PON1/EcoRV AA(30) 4.16 [+ or -] 0.16 (a)
 AG(32) 4.44 [+ or -] 0.15 (a)
 GG(26) 4.04 [+ or -] 0.15 (a)
PON1/AluI AA(19) 4.58 [+ or -] 0.19 (a)
 AG(46) 4.22 [+ or -] 0.13 (ab)
 GG(23) 4.00 [+ or -] 0.14 (b)

BW1 = Body weight at the beginning of confinement, SBW = Body weight
at the time of slaughter, HCW = Hot carcass weight, NMW = Net meat
weight, TBW = Total bone weight, REMG = Rib eye meat weight and
ADG = Average daily gain, REA = Rib eye area.
BFT = Backfat thickness, TN = Tenderness, MBS = Marbling score,
MCS = Meat color score, FCS = Fat color score.
Means with different superscript within the same locus
differ (p<0.05).

Table 4. LSM ([+ or -] standard error) of growth and carcass traits
obtained for three breeds

Breed BW1 (kg) SBW (kg)

Angus 326.87 [+ or -] 5.55 (a) 576.55 [+ or -] 7.88 (a)
Hereford 332.03 [+ or -] 6.82 (a) 592.12 [+ or -] 8.77 (a)
Simmental 292.54 [+ or -] 3.86 (b) 517.70 [+ or -] 7.79 (b)

Breed ADG (kg) HCW (kg)

Angus 0.66 [+ or -] 0.01 (ab) 319.10 [+ or -] 4.91 (a)
Hereford 0.70 [+ or -] 0.01 (a) 317.33 [+ or -] 5.98 (a)
Simmental 0.63 [+ or -] 0.01 (b) 276.88 [+ or -] 4.34 (b)

Breed TBW (kg) NMW (kg)

Angus 25.84 [+ or -] 0.47 (b) 275.70 [+ or -] 7.67 (a)
Hereford 26.68 [+ or -] 0.37 (a) 282.72 [+ or -] 4.26 (a)
Simmental 24.28 [+ or -] 0.46 (b) 246.71 [+ or -] 3.73 (b)

Breed REMG (kg) BFT (cm)

Angus 1.42 [+ or -] 0.03 (ab) 0.99 [+ or -] 0.06 (a)
Hereford 1.50 [+ or -] 0.04 (a) 0.99 [+ or -] 0.09 (a)
Simmental 1.32 [+ or -] 0.03 (b) 0.64 [+ or -] 0.04 (b)

Breed TN (kg) MBS

Angus 2.76 [+ or -] 0.13 (b) 1.97 [+ or -] 0.13
Hereford 3.29 [+ or -] 0.16 (ab) 2.65 [+ or -] 0.18
Simmental 4.13 [+ or -] 0.26 (a) 2.45 [+ or -] 0.19

Breed REA ([cm.sup.2]) MCS

Angus 66.80 [+ or -] 1.44 4.33 [+ or -] 0.16
Hereford 62.27 [+ or -] 1.29 4.08 [+ or -] 0.15
Simmental 63.25 [+ or -] 1.20 4.16 [+ or -] 0.15

Breed FCS

Angus 1.32 [+ or -] 0.06
Hereford 1.16 [+ or -] 0.06
Simmental 1.23 [+ or -] 0.06

BW1 = Body weight at the beginning of confinement, SBW = Body weight
at the time of slaughter, HCW = Hot carcass weight, NMW = Net meat
weight, TBW = Total bone weight, REMG = Rib eye meat weight and
ADG = Average daily gain, REA = Rib eye area, BFT = Backfat thickness,
TN = Tenderness, MBS = Marbling score, MCS = Meat color score,
FCS = Fat color score. The same note is used in the following tables.

(a. b) Means with different superscripts within the same locus
differ (p<0.05).

Table 5. LSM ([+ or -] standard error) of growth and carcass traits
obtained for the genotype of the PON1/EcoRV locus in three breeds

 Geno
Breed type BW1 (kg) SBW (kg)

Angus AA 315.00 [+ or -] 12.26 543.25 [+ or -] 20.28 (a)
 AG 331.73 [+ or -] 7.80 590.77 [+ or -] 8.52 (a)
 GG 330.00 [+ or -] 9.86 584.14 [+ or -] 9.13 (a)
Hereford AA 327.60 [+ or -] 12.17 623.35 [+ or -] 8.50 (b)
 AG 345.36 [+ or -] 10.12 587.86 [+ or -] 12.57 (a)
 GG 320.67 [+ or -] 13.21 562.61 [+ or -] 18.74 (a)
Simmental AA 291.92 [+ or -] 5.73 507.67 [+ or -] 11.28 (a)
 AG 297.33 [+ or -] 10.99 525.67 [+ or -] 23.23 (a)
 GG 290.40 [+ or -] 5.86 524.95 [+ or -] 10.94 (a)

 Geno
Breed type ADG (kg) HCW (kg)

Angus AA 0.62 [+ or -] 0.03 (a) 300.95 [+ or -] 10.72
 AG 0.67 [+ or -] 0.02 (a) 325.40 [+ or -] 6.39
 GG 0.66 [+ or -] 0.01 (a) 326.20 [+ or -] 7.57
Hereford AA 0.75 [+ or -] 0.01 (b) 332.49 [+ or -] 7.77
 AG 0.69 [+ or -] 0.02 (a) 317.09 [+ or -] 7.94
 GG 0.67 [+ or -] 0.02 (a) 300.78 [+ or -] 13.91
Simmental AA 0.61 [+ or -] 0.02 (a) 272.73 [+ or -] 6.37
 AG 0.65 [+ or -] 0.03 (a) 277.43 [+ or -] 12.79
 GG 0.64 [+ or -] 0.01 (a) 281.53 [+ or -] 6.27

 Geno
Breed type TBW (kg) NMW (kg)

Angus AA 24.58 [+ or -] 0.79 259.33 [+ or -] 9.77 (a)
 AG 25.72 [+ or -] 0.62 282.52 [+ or -] 4.21 (a)
 GG 27.57 [+ or -] 0.98 278.28 [+ or -] 4.44 (a)
Hereford AA 27.32 [+ or -] 0.51 298.01 [+ or -] 4.17 (b)
 AG 26.67 [+ or -] 0.68 280.59 [+ or -] 6.02 (a)
 GG 25.97 [+ or -] 0.70 263.32 [+ or -] 9.13 (a)
Simmental AA 24.18 [+ or -] 0.82 241.72 [+ or -] 5.32 (a)
 AG 24.56 [+ or -] 0.95 250.70 [+ or -] 11.24 (a)
 GG 24.41 [+ or -] 0.67 250.27 [+ or -] 5.25 (a)

 Geno
Breed type REMG (kg) BFT (cm)

Angus AA 1.35 [+ or -] 0.06 0.98 [+ or -] 0.07
 AG 1.44 [+ or -] 0.03 0.92 [+ or -] 0.10
 GG 1.44 [+ or -] 0.10 1.17 [+ or -] 0.13
Hereford AA 1.44 [+ or -] 0.06 1.03 [+ or -] 0.21
 AG 1.47 [+ or -] 0.04 1.14 [+ or -] 0.13
 GG 1.45 [+ or -] 0.12 0.77 [+ or -] 0.11
Simmental AA 1.35 [+ or -] 0.05 0.62 [+ or -] 0.07
 AG 1.33 [+ or -] 0.08 0.63 [+ or -] 0.07
 GG 1.27 [+ or -] 0.06 0.68 [+ or -] 0.07

 Geno
Breed type TN (kg) MBS

Angus AA 2.94 [+ or -] 0.12 (a) 2.00 [+ or -] 0.27
 AG 2.54 [+ or -] 0.17 (a) 1.97 [+ or -] 0.19
 GG 3.01 [+ or -] 0.37 (a) 1.93 [+ or -] 0.23
Hereford AA 3.45 [+ or -] 0.24 (a) 2.20 [+ or -] 0.27
 AG 3.34 [+ or -] 0.36 (a) 2.64 [+ or -] 0.29
 GG 3.05 [+ or -] 0.20 (a) 3.17 [+ or -] 0.33
Simmental AA 4.48 [+ or -] 0.45 (b) 2.50 [+ or -] 0.35
 AG 4.08 [+ or -] 0.51 (a) 2.67 [+ or -] 0.31
 GG 3.75 [+ or -] 0.37 (a) 2.25 [+ or -] 0.30

 Geno
Breed type REA ([cm.sup.2]) MCS

Angus AA 66.00 [+ or -] 1.61 4.15 [+ or -] 0.28
 AG 66.53 [+ or -] 2.41 4.67 [+ or -] 0.25
 GG 68.29 [+ or -] 3.14 4.29 [+ or -] 0.31
Hereford AA 65.20 [+ or -] 1.60 3.80 [+ or -] 0.24
 AG 62.55 [+ or -] 1.78 4.18 [+ or -] 0.24
 GG 58.67 [+ or -] 3.04 4.28 [+ or -] 0.29
Simmental AA 63.17 [+ or -] 2.11 4.50 [+ or -] 0.28
 AG 65.83 [+ or -] 1.30 4.33 [+ or -] 0.17
 GG 61.80 [+ or -] 2.08 3.65 [+ or -] 0.17

 Geno
Breed type FCS

Angus AA 1.19 [+ or -] 0.13
 AG 1.43 [+ or -] 0.08
 GG 1.21 [+ or -] 0.10
Hereford AA 1.20 [+ or -] 0.11
 AG 1.05 [+ or -] 0.05
 GG 1.28 [+ or -] 0.12
Simmental AA 1.33 [+ or -] 0.99
 AG 1.33 [+ or -] 0.17
 GG 1.05 [+ or -] 0.05

LSM of the same trait with different superscripts differ (p<0.05).

Table 6. Least squares means of growth and carcass traits obtained for
the genotype of the PON1/AluI locus in three breeds

 Geno
Breed type BW1 (kg) SBW (kg)

Angus AA 333.40 [+ or -] 14.39 (a) 582.20 [+ or -] 15.20 (a)
 AG 327.82 [+ or -] 7.04 (a) 586.65 [+ or -] 9.50 (a)
 GG 320.75 [+ or -] 12.44 (a) 551.56 [+ or -] 17.95 (a)
Hereford AA 352.00 [+ or -] 13.43 (a) 610.11 [+ or -] 15.31 (a)
 AG 330.25 [+ or -] 8.63 (a) 577.66 [+ or -] 16.26 (a)
 GG 301.80 [+ or -] 8.43 (a) 606.00 [+ or -] 18.36 (a)
Simmental AA 299.80 [+ or -] 8.28 (a) 511.50 [+ or -] 17.91 (b)
 AG 300.15 [+ or -] 5.83 (a) 524.69 [+ or -] 12.17 (a)
 GG 279.00 [+ or -] 4.38 (b) 511.70 [+ or -] 12.99 (b)

 Geno
Breed type ADG (kg) HCW (kg)

Angus AA 0.69 [+ or -] 0.03 (a) 317.28 [+ or -] 9.99 (a)
 AG 0.68 [+ or -] 0.01 (a) 324.56 [+ or -] 6.12 (a)
 GG 0.59 [+ or -] 0.03 (b) 308.50 [+ or -] 11.48 (a)
Hereford AA 0.72 [+ or -] 0.02 (a) 330.16 [+ or -] 8.84 (a)
 AG 0.69 [+ or -] 0.01 (a) 306.58 [+ or -] 8.60 (a)
 GG 0.71 [+ or -] 0.02 (a) 328.64 [+ or -] 13.62 (a)
Simmental AA 0.62 [+ or -] 0.03 (a) 273.32 [+ or -] 9.60 (b)
 AG 0.64 [+ or -] 0.02 (a) 280.72 [+ or -] 6.69 (b)
 GG 0.62 [+ or -] 0.02 (a) 273.67 [+ or -] 7.49 (b)

 Geno
Breed type TBW (kg) NMW (kg)

Angus AA 25.30 [+ or -] 1.23 273.45 [+ or -] 7.74 (a)
 AG 26.26 [+ or -] 0.58 280.19 [+ or -] 4.56 (a)
 GG 25.31 [+ or -] 1.05 263.13 [+ or -] 8.75 (a)
Hereford AA 26.99 [+ or -] 0.71 291.56 [+ or -] 7.47 (a)
 AG 26.44 [+ or -] 0.42 275.61 [+ or -] 5.99 (a)
 GG 26.85 [+ or -] 1.38 289.57 [+ or -] 9.55 (a)
Simmental AA 24.24 [+ or -] 1.07 243.63 [+ or -] 9.57 (b)
 AG 24.60 [+ or -] 0.74 250.05 [+ or -] 5.82 (a)
 GG 23.88 [+ or -] 0.72 243.91 [+ or -] 6.24 (b)

 Geno
Breed type REMG (kg) BFT (cm)

Angus AA 1.46 [+ or -] 0.04 0.92 [+ or -] 0.16
 AG 1.45 [+ or -] 0.05 0.94 [+ or -] 0.07
 GG 1.31 [+ or -] 0.45 1.16 [+ or -] 0.16
Hereford AA 1.44 [+ or -] 0.05 1.19 [+ or -] 0.21
 AG 1.43 [+ or -] 0.07 0.84 [+ or -] 0.08
 GG 1.58 [+ or -] 0.12 1.10 [+ or -] 0.30
Simmental AA 1.18 [+ or -] 0.05 0.76 [+ or -] 0.11
 AG 1.39 [+ or -] 0.05 0.67 [+ or -] 0.07
 GG 1.30 [+ or -] 0.06 0.55 [+ or -] 0.05

 Geno
Breed type TN (kg) MBS

Angus AA 2.52 [+ or -] 0.27 (a) 1.70 [+ or -] 0.37
 AG 2.70 [+ or -] 0.19 (a) 1.88 [+ or -] 0.17
 GG 3.04 [+ or -] 0.21 (a) 2.31 [+ or -] 0.19
Hereford AA 3.11 [+ or -] 0.19 (a) 2.50 [+ or -] 0.30
 AG 3.20 [+ or -] 0.19 (a) 2.84 [+ or -] 0.25
 GG 4.02 [+ or -] 0.65 (a) 2.30 [+ or -] 0.54
Simmental AA 4.50 [+ or -] 1.11 (b) 2.30 [+ or -] 0.51
 AG 4.13 [+ or -] 0.32 (b) 2.23 [+ or -] 0.28
 GG 3.96 [+ or -] 0.28 (a) 2.75 [+ or -] 0.33

 Geno
Breed type REA (c[m.sup.2]) MCS

Angus AA 65.20 [+ or -] 3.65 4.80 [+ or -] 0.20
 AG 68.94 [+ or -] 1.52 4.35 [+ or -] 0.26
 GG 63.25 [+ or -] 3.57 4.38 [+ or -] 0.25
Hereford AA 63.11 [+ or -] 2.28 4.17 [+ or -] 0.26
 AG 61.44 [+ or -] 1.81 4.13 [+ or -] 0.22
 GG 63.40 [+ or -] 3.61 3.80 [+ or -] 0.25
Simmental AA 64.60 [+ or -] 3.04 5.10 [+ or -] 0.40
 AG 63.69 [+ or -] 2.03 4.15 [+ or -] 0.18
 GG 62.00 [+ or -] 1.59 3.70 [+ or -] 0.17

 Geno
Breed type FCS

Angus AA 1.40 [+ or -] 0.19
 AG 1.29 [+ or -] 0.07
 GG 1.31 [+ or -] 0.13
Hereford AA 1.11 [+ or -] 0.07
 AG 1.22 [+ or -] 0.09
 GG 1.10 [+ or -] 0.10
Simmental AA 1.40 [+ or -] 0.19
 AG 1.27 [+ or -] 0.09
 GG 1.10 [+ or -] 0.07

LSM of the same trait with different superscripts differ (p<0.05).

Table 7. Least squares means of growth and carcass traits obtained
for the linkage genotype at the PON1/EcoRV and AluI loci

Geneotype BW1 (kg) SBW (kg)

[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 354.33 (a) 583.39
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 301.61 (b) 559.63
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 294.94 (b) 545.72
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 321.03 (ab) 563.04
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 331.91 (ab) 575.79
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 313.11 (ab) 555.56
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 313.67 (ab) 562.17
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 322.18 (ab) 549.97
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 290.33 (b) 562.07

Geneotype ADG (kg) HCW (kg)

[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 0.70 313.73
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 0.66 301.82
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 0.63 299.87
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 0.66 307.63
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 0.69 309.20
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 0.63 300.02
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 0.65 309.43
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 0.65 297.79
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 0.66 307.98

Geneotype TBW (kg) NMW (kg)

[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 25.36 279.02
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 25.67 266.97
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 25.08 260.32
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 24.73 269.16
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 25.62 275.09
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 25.56 264.99
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 26.95 267.61
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 25.77 262.10
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 26.01 268.03

Geneotype REMG (kg) BFT (cm)

[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 1.36 1.16 (ab)
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 1.43 0.87 (ab)
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 1.36 0.62 (b)
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 1.37 0.82 (ab)
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 1.46 0.79 (ab)
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 1.37 1.24 (a)
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 1.38 0.89 (ab)
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 1.38 0.86 (ab)
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 1.45 1.02 (ab)

Geneotype TN (kg) MBS

[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 3.55 1.83
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 3.58 2.08
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 3.69 2.65
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 2.86 2.08
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 3.29 2.60
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 3.78 2.28
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 3.30 2.17
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 3.20 2.42
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 3.66 2.50

 REA
Geneotype (c[m.sup.2]) MCS

[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 66.67 4.67
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 66.01 3.84
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 62.47 3.94
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 64.83 4.63
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 66.01 4.35
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 62.17 4.31
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 64.67 4.17
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 61.62 4.27
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 64.60 3.33

Geneotype FCS

[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 1.22
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 1.26
[A.sub.e][A.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 1.24
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 1.33
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 1.31
[A.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 1.22
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][A.sub.a] 1.25
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][A.sub.a][G.sub.a] 1.22
[G.sub.e][G.sub.e][G.sub.a][G.sub.a] 1.00

LSM with different superscripts differ (p<0.05); Subscripts for
genotypes "e" and "a" are EcoRV and AluI.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Asian - Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:paraoxonase-1, single nucleotide polymorphisms
Author:Ji, A.G.; Huai, Y.H.; Zhou, Z.K.; Li, J.Y.; Zhang, L.P.; Xu, S.Z.; Gao, X.; Ren, H.Y.; Chen, J.B.
Publication:Asian - Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9CHIN
Date:Aug 1, 2008
Words:7529
Previous Article:Genetic and environmental trends for milk production traits in sheep estimated with test-day model.
Next Article:Induction of folate sensitive chromosomal fragile sites by Fudr in Pakistani Lohi sheep (Ovis aries).
Topics:


Related Articles
Molecular cloning and characterization of bovine HMGA1 gene.
Discrimination of Korean cattle (Hanwoo) using DNA markers derived from SNPs in bovine mitochondrial and SRY genes.
Association analysis between insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 (IGFBP3) polymorphisms and carcass traits in cattle.
Multifactor Dimensionality Reduction (MDR) analysis to detect single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with a carcass trait in a Hanwoo population.
Mapping, tissue distribution and polymorphism of porcine retinol binding protein genes (RBP5 and RBP7).
SNP discovery in the leptin promoter gene and association with meat quality and carcass traits in Korean cattle.
Identification of candidate SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) for growth and carcass traits related to QTL on chromosome 6 in Hanwoo (Korean...
Developmental changes in PON1 enzyme activity in young children and effects of PON1 polymorphisms.
Southern discomfort? PON1 variation may help explain regional CVD risk.
Association between single nucleotide polymorphisms in the Dgat2 gene and beef carcass and quality traits in commercial feedlot steers.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters