Jump to Main Content
Sequence analysis of chromosome 1 revealed different selection patterns between Chinese wild mice and laboratory strains
- Xu, Fuyi, Hu, Shixian, Chao, Tianzhu, Wang, Maochun, Li, Kai, Zhou, Yuxun, Xu, Hongyan, Xiao, Junhua
- Molecular genetics and genomics 2017 v.292 no.5 pp. 1111-1121
- artificial selection, body weight, chromosomes, genes, immune system, mice, mortality, natural selection, phenotype, sequence analysis, statistics, substitution lines
- Both natural and artificial selection play a critical role in animals’ adaptation to the environment. Detection of the signature of selection in genomic regions can provide insights for understanding the function of specific phenotypes. It is generally assumed that laboratory mice may experience intense artificial selection while wild mice more natural selection. However, the differences of selection signature in the mouse genome and underlying genes between wild and laboratory mice remain unclear. In this study, we used two mouse populations: chromosome 1 (Chr 1) substitution lines (C1SLs) derived from Chinese wild mice and mouse genome project (MGP) sequenced inbred strains and two selection detection statistics: Fst and Tajima’s D to identify the signature of selection footprint on Chr 1. For the differentiation between the C1SLs and MGP, 110 candidate selection regions containing 47 protein coding genes were detected. A total of 149 selection regions which encompass 7.215 Mb were identified in the C1SLs by Tajima’s D approach. While for the MGP, we identified nearly twice selection regions (243) compared with the C1SLs which accounted for 13.27 Mb Chr 1 sequence. Through functional annotation, we identified several biological processes with significant enrichment including seven genes in the olfactory transduction pathway. In addition, we searched the phenotypes associated with the 47 candidate selection genes identified by Fst. These genes were involved in behavior, growth or body weight, mortality or aging, and immune systems which align well with the phenotypic differences between wild and laboratory mice. Therefore, the findings would be helpful for our understanding of the phenotypic differences between wild and laboratory mice and applications for using this new mouse resource (C1SLs) for further genetics studies.