Next Article in Journal
Predicting Chemical Composition and Apparent Total Tract Digestibility on Freeze-Dried Not Ground Faeces Using Near-Infrared Spectroscopy in Pigs
Next Article in Special Issue
Evolutions in Commercial Meat Poultry Breeding
Previous Article in Journal
A Selection of 14 Tetrameric Microsatellite Markers for Genetic Investigations in Fallow Deer (Dama dama)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparison of Immune-Related Gene Expression in Two Chicken Breeds Following Infectious Bronchitis Virus Vaccination
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Identification of SNPs Associated with Goose Meat Quality Traits Using a Genome-Wide Association Study Approach

1
Chongqing Academy of Animal Science, Rongchang District, Chongqing 402460, China
2
Chongqing Engineering Research Center of Goose Genetic Improvement, Rongchang District, Chongqing 402460, China
3
Department of Laboratory Animal Sciences, Peking University Health Sciences Center, Beijing 100191, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Animals 2023, 13(13), 2089; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13132089
Submission received: 2 April 2023 / Revised: 19 June 2023 / Accepted: 21 June 2023 / Published: 24 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Genetic Analysis of Important Traits in Poultry)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

To screen and identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with geese meat quality traits, we performed genome-wide association study (GWAS) in a population of male Sichuan white geese (a Chinese local breed) at 70 days old to screen the SNPs in the goose genome. Additionally, genotypes of the selected SNPs associated with goose meat were detected using the matrix-assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOP MS) method. The results revealed 43 SNPs that showed potentially significant associations with these traits. Additionally, we detected 28 annotated genes as potential candidate genes for the five meat quality traits. The enrichment analysis of genes within a 1Mb vicinity of SNPs showed potentially significant enrichment in the protein digestion and absorption pathway, as well as the Glycolipid metabolism pathway. The findings of this study offer novel genetic markers and candidate genes that can be used for marker-assisted selection of geese, laying the groundwork for understanding the genetic basis of goose meat quality traits and establishing a foundation for comprehending their genetic basis.

Abstract

(1) Background: Goose meat is highly valued for its economic significance and vast market potential due to its desirable qualities, including a rich nutritional profile, tender texture, relatively low-fat content, and high levels of beneficial unsaturated fatty acids. However, there is an urgent need to improve goose breeding by identifying molecular markers associated with meat quality. (2) Methods: We evaluated meat quality traits, such as meat color, shear force (SF), cooking loss rate (CLR), and crude fat content (CFC), in a population of 215 male Sichuan white geese at 70 days of age. A GWAS was performed to identify potential molecular markers associated with goose meat quality. Furthermore, the selected SNPs linked to meat quality traits were genotyped using the MALDI-TOP MS method. (3) Results: A dataset of 2601.19 Gb of WGS data was obtained from 215 individuals, with an average sequencing depth of 10.89×. The GWAS revealed the identification of 43 potentially significant SNP markers associated with meat quality traits in the Sichuan white goose population. Additionally, 28 genes were identified as important candidate genes for meat quality. The gene enrichment analysis indicated a substantial enrichment of genes within a 1Mb vicinity of SNPs in both the protein digestion and absorption pathway and the Glycerolipid metabolism pathway. (4) Conclusion: This study provides valuable insights into the genetic and molecular mechanisms underlying goose meat quality traits, offering crucial references for molecular breeding in this field.

1. Introduction

Goose meat is a nutrient-rich meat that is considered a healthy food due to its high protein, low fat, and low cholesterol content, which is regarded as one of the ideal meat products and an important source of meat-based foods by the World Health Organization [1]. In 2021, Chinese goose meat production reached an impressive 570 million birds, accounting for 99% of Asia’s total and 94% of the global output. Furthermore, China achieved a goose meat yield of 1.77 million tons [2]. Renowned for its exceptional meat quality, the Sichuan white goose (Anser cygnoides domesticus) stands as a distinct local breed in China. It is characterized by a tender and delicate texture, contributing to its esteemed reputation and substantial market value. Over the past few years, there has been a steady rise in the market demand for goose meat [3,4]. This surge can be attributed to the increasing focus on healthy lifestyles, thereby highlighting significant opportunities within the goose meat industry. The meat quality of geese is a multifaceted attribute shaped by numerous genes, encompassing both major and minor effects. The intricate and multifaceted regulatory mechanism governing this trait adds to its complexity [5]. Previous studies have extensively documented the impact of factors such as breed, age, nutrition, environment, and disease on meat quality traits in geese [6]. Hence, identifying and screening molecular markers and key genes associated with these traits holds substantial potential to enhance breeding efficiency and elevate the overall quality of goose meat. Meat quality evaluation relies heavily on multiple meat indices, including lightness (L*), redness (a*), yellowness (b*) of meat color, pH value, shear force (SF), cooking loss rate (CLR), and crude fat content (CFC). Diets rich in methionine have been shown to positively influence pectoral muscle meat production, elevate pH value, enhance meat color, and reduce muscle shear [7,8,9]. The presence of fatty acids in the diet directly affects meat flavor and intramuscular fat production. Studies indicate that higher levels of soy phospholipids in the diet increase the fat content in pectoral and leg muscles, resulting in improved tethering force, reduced drip loss, and minimized cooking loss in the muscle [10,11]. Additionally, an increase in crude fat content (CFC) promotes intermuscular fat deposition, weakening the binding force between muscle fibers. As a result, shearing force is reduced, and meat tenderness is improved [12,13].
Genetic factors play a crucial role in determining meat quality traits alongside external factors. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been utilized to investigate the relationship between phenotype and genotype in populations, yielding significant findings in the identification of genetic variations associated with meat quality traits in livestock and poultry [14,15,16,17,18]. The advancement of whole-genome resequencing technology enables accurate screening of various types of genetic variations, including single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), insertion-deletion sites (InDels), structural variation sites (SVs), copy number variations (CNVs), presence/absence variations (PAVs), and others. Previous studies have identified candidate genes related to meat quality traits in chicken, broiler lines, and Pekin ducks [19,20]. For example, a GWAS focusing on chicken meat quality traits successfully identified genetic markers associated with characteristics such as meat color, pH, and water-holding capacity. Furthermore, it also suggested that GJA1 may serve as a functional gene in the development of breast muscle in chickens [21]. Another study conducted on broiler lines identified seven potential candidate genes, including SHH, LMBR1, IGF1R, and SLC16A, which might be involved in controlling abdominal fat content. In the case of Pekin ducks, GWAS of body size and carcass traits revealed a specific mutation site located within the anti-lipogenesis gene NR2F2 in high sebaceous Pekin ducks [22,23].
The utilization of whole-genome resequencing successfully detected single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with meat quality traits in the genome of Sichuan geese. Subsequent to that, a GWAS was conducted to precisely identify specific genomic regions and candidate genes associated with these traits. Moreover, we examined the frequency of SNPs associated with meat quality traits. The comprehensive findings of this study lay a solid foundation for future investigations into goose meat traits and make significant contributions to the advancement of genetic selection efforts in this field.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Animals and Phenotypic Traits

The male Sichuan white geese, selected as experimental animals from a shared incubation batch, were reared at the AnFu Waterfowl Breeding Base in Chongqing City, China (latitude: 105.478° N, longitude: 29.343° E). The geese were subjected to standardized conditions of diet, temperature, lighting, and unrestricted access to water during their rearing period. When the geese reached 70 days of age, a total of 215 healthy individuals were randomly chosen as experimental subjects. Blood samples were collected from the geese’s wings using vacuum tubes containing the anticoagulant EDTA, and these samples were subsequently stored at −20 °C to prepare them for future experiments. To measure the three meat color parameters (L*, a*, and b*) in three fixed points of 215 goose right pectoral muscle samples after 2 h of slaughter, an automatic colorimeter and a portable pH meter were used after calibration. The muscle samples were standardized for thickness and weight (M0) and then bathed in an 80 °C-thermostat water bath (model SW 22, Julabo GmbH, Seelbach, Germany). Once the center temperature of the samples reached 70 °C, they were incubated for a duration of 30 min. Subsequently, the samples were removed from the heat source and allowed to cool down to room temperature. The sample was then weighed (M1), and the cooking loss rate (CLR) was calculated as CLR = (M0 − M1)/M0 × 100%.
The cooled breast muscle was fixed perpendicular to the muscle fiber into long strips with a 1 cm × 1 cm cross-sectional area, and the strips were sheared with a tenderness meter (CLM-3), repeated 5 times to obtain the average shearing force (SF) of these samples. Fresh meat samples of 100g were freeze dried into powder, and the powder was weighed (Mp). The moisture content of freeze dried (MCFD) was calculated as MCFD = (100 − Mp)/100 × 100%. The fat was extracted by petroleum benzene from 1g of the freeze-dried powder, and the remaining material (MR) was dried at 105 °C for 2 h. The crude fat content (CFC) was then calculated as CFC = (1 − MR) × Mp/100 × 100%.

2.2. Whole-Genome Resequencing and SNP Calling

We extracted genomic DNA from whole blood samples of geese using the DP332 genomic DNA extraction kit from Tiangen Biotech. Subsequently, we evaluated the quality of the extracted DNA by measuring the OD260/280 ratio, which ranged from 1.8 to 1.89. To facilitate Illumina sequencing, the original DNA samples were diluted to a concentration of 50 ng/μL. We utilized 100 μL from each sample. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) was performed using the Illumina HiSeq X Ten platform. Following the generation of WGS data, we performed quality control procedures using the NGS QC Toolkit software [24], which involved removing adapter sequences and residual primers and trimming low-quality bases. The filtered reads were aligned to the goose genome (version ASM1303099v1) using the BWA software [25,26], followed by SNP calling using GATK software [27]. The trait phenotype dataset in this study consisted only of individual-level samples with a genotype data completeness of over 95%. SNP filtering was performed using Plink [28] at the SNP level with the following parameters: -genome 0.1 –hwe 0.0000001 –maf 0.05 –mind 0.1. Additionally, individuals with less than 10% of missing genotypes were retained. As a result, a total of 203 individuals were included for further analysis. Afterward, we performed principal component analysis (PCA) analysis to evaluate goose population stratification using the model implemented in Plink based on the WGS data from 203 individuals.

2.3. GWAS

We utilized the GEMMA software [29] to conduct GWAS in order to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with various goose meat quality traits, including CF, MCFD, CLR, SF, and meat color (L*, a*, b*). The GWAS employed a mixed linear model, expressed as the equation y = Wα + xβ + ε, where y represents the phenotypic value for all individuals. W, a covariance matrix (fixed effects: PC1-PC2 value), was used to control for population structure, while α is a vector of coefficients, including the intercept. The variable x corresponds to the genotype of the SNP or haplotype marker, and β represents the effect size of the SNP or haplotype marker on the phenotypes. Random residuals were represented by the vector ε. We assessed the significance of the associations between the SNPs and phenotypes using the Wald test statistic and applied Bonferroni’s correction to adjust the association analysis results. The significance and potential association thresholds in the whole-genome analysis were calculated using the formula P = 0.05/N or 1/N. Here, P represents the Bonferroni-corrected p-value for significant or potential associations across the entire genome, while N denotes the number of independent SNPs obtained from the population structure analysis. In this particular study, the determined thresholds for significant and potentially significant associations were 4.94 × 10−9 (0.05/10,072,006) and 1.0 × 10−7 (1/10,072,006), respectively. The Manhattan plots and quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plots were created using the “gap” package (Version 1.5-1, assess data 22 January 2023, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gap/) [30] and “qqman” package (Version 0.1.8, assess data 19 April 2021, https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/qqman/) [31] in the R project software. To evaluate the presence of false-positive signals in the obtained results, we utilized the GenABEL package and calculated the genomic inflation factor (k) [32].
To determine the genotypes of the SNPs significantly associated with meat quality traits in the Sichuan white goose population using GWAS, we designed amplification and extension primers (Table 1) to amplify the target sequences and facilitate the hybridization and elongation of the fragments at the specific nucleotide of interest. To assess the variation in meat quality traits among different genotypes of selected SNPs, we utilized a general linear model in JMP software (version 13.0). Following this, we computed the least-squares mean for each genotype and performed a Bonferroni test to evaluate the differences between the genotypes.

2.4. SNP Annotation

In this study, the BEDTools software [33] was used to extract genetic information from 1 Mb regions upstream and downstream of each potential SNP in the goose genome, while SNP annotation was conducted using Annovar software [34] (SnpEff, Annovar, VEP, Oncotator). Functional annotation analysis of the candidate genes was performed using the Metascape website [35] (https://metascape.org/, accessed on 12 December 2019).

3. Results

3.1. Phenotypic Description of the Goose Population

A fast and efficient fattening method is commonly used for raising meat geese. Generally, geese can be marketed after 70 days, and the meat quality of 70-day-old geese holds significant economic value in production practice. The statistical data of meat quality traits for the breast muscles of 70-day-old male Sichuan white geese are presented in Table 2 as part of this study, including crude fat content (CFC), meat color (L*, a*, and b*), shear force (SF), moisture content of freeze dried (MCFD), and cooking loss rate (CLR).

3.2. Whole-Genome Resequencing and SNP Calling

We obtained 2608.44 Gb of WGS data from 215 male Sichuan white geese, with an average depth coverage of 10.89×. After filtering, we obtained 2601.19 Gb of high-quality sequencing data, with an average mapping rate of 97.88% (ranging from 97.72% to 98.10%) when aligned to the reference genome sequence of geese. The average Q20 and Q30 values were 96.77% and 91.90%, respectively. The average GC content was calculated to be 43.63%. The subsequent analysis focused on 10,072,006 SNPs identified in the goose genome (version ASM1303099v1) (Figure 1).

3.3. The Goose Population Structure and the GWAS

The PCA analysis indicated that there was no significant population stratification (Figure 2). Hence, we employed a mixed linear model utilizing the GEMMA software package to conduct a genome-wide association study (GWAS) for the meat quality traits. We identified a total of 43 SNPs located within 28 genes (Table 3) that exhibited potentially significant associations with the meat quality traits (Figure 3).

3.4. The Genotypes of the Selected SNPs

We detected the 11 SNPs genotypes and compared the meat quality traits of different genotypes identified by GWAS (Table 4), including eight SNPs (chr13:25432644, ctg930:11921, chr36:5611038, ctg2092:176333, chr29:8278595, chr9:33911228, chr1:24867798, and chr7:16992800) are potentially significantly associated with b* meat yellowness and three SNPs (chr12:31782870, chr12:31781825, and chr2:36812553) are significantly associated with SF meat quality traits.

3.5. The Gene Annotation within 1 Mb of the Potentially Significant SNPs

We performed the gene annotation within 1Mb of the potentially significant SNPs with the goose meat quality traits by the KEGG database. The gene enrichment analysis shown that the genes were enrich in the Cushing syndrome (ko04934, p value = 1.80 × 10−3), human papillomavirus infection (ko05165, p value = 3.22 × 10−3 0.003221264), ECM-receptor interaction (ko04512, p value = 3.53 × 10−3), protein digestion and absorption (ko04974, p value = 5.21 × 10−3), and Glycerolipid metabolism (ko00561, p value = 8.79 × 10−3) (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

The Sichuan white goose is a dual-purpose breed of Chinese poultry known for producing both meat and eggs. It is a valuable genetic resource and contributes significantly to the poultry industry, providing substantial economic and nutritional benefits in China. The quality of meat in the poultry industry is a crucial factor that affects consumer acceptance and, ultimately, the economic success of the industry. Poultry breeders use selective breeding and genetic improvement programs to enhance meat quality traits, aiming to produce birds that meet consumer preferences and demand. In this study, we investigated the meat quality traits of 70-day-old male Sichuan white geese. Using a GWAS, we screened and identified a total of 43 SNPs associated with CFC, CLR, meat color, and SF traits in a population of 215 Chinese local geese (Sichuan white goose).
The sample size is a critical factor in research design that can affect the validity and reliability of research findings [36]. A larger sample size can improve the results by reducing sampling error, increasing statistical power, increasing generalizability, and increasing precision. In this study, the principal component analysis shows that there is no significant stratification in the population (Figure 2), and the QQ plots indicated a good fit between the observed and predicted values, thereby suggesting the absence of any significant population stratification. In addition, we used MALDI-TOP MS to identify the 11 SNP sites associated with the meat quality SNP, as well as analyze the frequency for the candidate SNPs, which correspond to the results of the GWAS. To conclude, the results of this study are valid and reliable, and the SNPs can be used as a breeding marker for goose meat.
The crude fat content (CFC) of meat is a critical indicator of its quality, and it has been shown to be associated with several other quality traits. In this study, we investigated the genetic factors underlying CFC in geese and identified two potentially significant SNPs located in the transmembrane protein 65 (TMEM65) and mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 6 (SMAD6) genes. TMEM65 is a mitochondrial inner-membrane protein that plays a crucial role in oxidative stress response, oxygen consumption, and citrate synthase activity [37,38,39]. As CFC is closely related to fatty anabolism, which is influenced by the oxidative function of mitochondria, we hypothesize that TMEM65 may be involved in fat oxidation metabolism, indirectly affecting CFC levels. Fatty acid metabolism has a significant impact on the flavor and production of intramuscular fat, which, in turn, affects meat tenderness, water retention, and flavor presentation. Therefore, the identification of genetic markers associated with CFC, such as the identified SNP within the TMEM65 in this study, can have important implications for the selection and breeding of animals with desirable meat quality traits.
Meat color (L*, a*, and b*) reflects changes in muscle physiology, biochemistry, and microbiology and is an important index for evaluating meat appearance. Meat color can impact the functional characteristics and quality of further processed meat products. Our study (Table 2) identified 30 SNPs potentially significantly associated with meat color (MC). Glutamine synthetase (GSS), one of the identified candidate genes, plays a crucial role in several cellular processes. Its main function is the production of glutathione, which serves to protect cells from oxidative damage and aids in amino acid transport. Additionally, GSS is involved in the detoxification of foreign compounds. The presence of GSS as a candidate gene suggests its significance in safeguarding cells and maintaining cellular homeostasis. Further exploration of GSS’s role in these processes would provide valuable insights into its contribution to cellular health and the potential impact on various biological functions [40]. Ras-related GTP-binding protein C (RRAGC) and solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 5A1 (SLCO5A1) play crucial roles in the cellular response to amino acid availability. RRAGC, along with three other Rag proteins, plays a crucial role in the activation of the mTORC1 pathway, which is sensitive to amino acid levels [41,42], which regulates metabolic and physiological processes such as lipid metabolism, autophagy, and muscle protein synthesis [43,44,45]. After slaughtering, oxygen supply to the cells is reduced, leading to the accelerated breakdown of adenosine triphosphate (ATP), increased free radicals, accumulation of lactic acid, and changes in pH. These redox reactions promote protein denaturation and increase fluid efflux, leading to changes in meat color and water-holding capability [46]. Then, the meat color and water-holding capability occurred to change. Therefore, we hypothesize that the GSS, RRAGC, and SLCO5A1 may be responsible for the color presentation of the carcass by oxidative metabolism.
The shearing force (SF) is a critical parameter for assessing meat tenderness, which is influenced by various factors such as muscle fiber characteristics (e.g., diameter, density, type, and integrity), connective tissue composition (e.g., content, type, and cross-linking status), myogenic fibrin hydrolase properties, and intramuscular fat content. In this study, we identified seven SNPs located in Bcl-2-modifying factor (BMF), Nuclear envelope integral membrane protein 2 (NEMP2), and mitochondrial NAD-dependent malic enzyme (NAD-ME) that were potentially significantly associated with SF in goose. The correlations were further validated by the results of MALDI-TOF MS. In this study, we confirmed significant associations between the genotypes of SNP (chr2:36812553) in BMF and two SNPs (chr12:31782870, chr12:31781825) in NAD-ME with the shear force (SF) for geese meat. BMF, a member of the Bcl2 protein family, is a sensor for intracellular damage that can trigger cell apoptosis and potentially mediate muscle fiber atrophy [47,48]. NAD-ME participates in various metabolic pathways and provides reducing power NADPH for the synthesis of various cellular components [49]. In avian species, NAD-ME serves as the energy source for synthesizing long-chain fatty acids in poultry liver [50]. We hypothesize that BMF may directly impact muscle fiber structure, while NAD-ME may affect oxidoreductase activity and intramuscular fat generation in muscle, ultimately affecting SF.
There are three reasons why the SNPs from the GWAS were not previously reported. Firstly, in this study, we utilized the first chromosome-level genome sequence of geese (version ASM1303099v1) as the reference, which resulted in improved genome assembly and annotation compared to previous studies [25]. Furthermore, the absence of similar studies on data regarding goose meat qualities, along with the minimal changes undergone by geese during domestication from wild migratory geese, has resulted in the lack of reporting on numerous other genes related to meat quality in this study [51].
Metabolic pathways have comprehensive effects on meat quality traits [52], involving energy metabolism, nutrient utilization, metabolites, and oxidative status. Specifically, these pathways play a crucial role in regulating muscle pH and oxidative status, thus impacting meat color and water-holding capacity [53,54]. Through functional clustering analysis of annotated genes, we identified a group of candidate genes primarily clustered in metabolic pathways related to protein digestion and interaction (ko 04974) and glycerolipid metabolism (ko 00561). The content of glycerolipid directly influences the water-holding capability and tenderness of the meat. The glucose metabolism pathway affects the energy supply in muscle tissue [55], while the fatty acid metabolism pathway regulates fat accumulation and breakdown, thereby influencing the fat content and sensory characteristics of meat [56].

5. Conclusions

In this study, we performed GWAS with goose meat quality traits and identified 43 SNPs that demonstrated potentially significant associations with these traits. Additionally, we used the MALDI-TOP MS method to genotype the selected SNPs associated with the traits in the same population. Our findings revealed 28 annotated genes that show promise as potential candidate genes linked to the five investigated meat quality traits. These genes represent novel genetic markers and can be implemented in marker-assisted selection programs for geese. Importantly, our study contributes to a comprehensive understanding of the genetic mechanisms underlying meat quality traits in geese, establishing a solid foundation for future research in this field.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: K.Z. and J.L.; Methodology: P.H., Y.X., J.L. and X.W.; Investigation: P.H., X.Z., Q.L. and J.L.; Visualization: G.G., K.Z., X.Z., Y.X., C.Y., J.X., Z.C. and X.W.; Data curation: G.G., K.Z., P.H., X.Z., Q.L., C.Y., Z.W., J.X. and Z.C.; Funding acquisition: G.G. and Q.W.; Supervision: G.G. and X.W.; Writing—original draft: G.G.; Writing—review and editing: G.G. and Q.W.; Formal analysis: K.Z. and Z.W.; Project administration: P.H. and Q.W.; Software: X.Z., Q.L., Y.X., C.Y., J.X. and X.W.; Resources: H.Z. and Q.W.; Validation: H.Z. and Q.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Key R&D Project in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry of Rongchang, grant number No. 22534C-23; the Chongqing Scientific Research Institution Performance incentive project, grant number cstc2022jxjl80007; Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing Project, grant number CSTB2022NSCQ-MSX0434; Goose Genetic Breeding Research Innovation Team from Chongqing Talents Program (CQYC20200309103); the earmarked fund for China Agriculture Research System, grant number CARS-42-51.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was granted approval by the Animal Care and Welfare Committee of the Chinese Chongqing Academy of Animal Science, as indicated by permit number XKY-No.20200301. Furthermore, all animal experiments were conducted in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data have been deposited in the GenBank databases under the accession number PRJNA595357. The data can be accessed at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA595357, accessed on 12 December 2019.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their sincere gratitude to the dedicated staff at AnFu water-fowl breeding base for their diligent efforts in collecting the phenotypic data for this study. Their contributions were instrumental in the successful completion of this research. The authors would also like to extend their appreciation to the reviewers for their valuable insights and constructive feedback, which significantly enhanced the quality of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kozák, J. Goose production and goose products. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2021, 77, 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tang, J.; Ouyang, H.; Chen, X.; Jiang, D.; Tian, Y.; Huang, Y.; Shen, X. Comparative Transcriptome Analyses of Leg Muscle during Early Growth between Geese (Anser cygnoides) Breeds Differing in Body Size Characteristics. Genes 2023, 14, 1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Windhorst, H. Asia dominates global waterfowl production. World Poult. 2011, 27, 6–9. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wołoszyn, J.; Wereńska, M.; Goluch, Z.; Haraf, G.; Okruszek, A.; Teleszko, M.; Król, B. The selected goose meat quality traits in relation to various types of heat treatment. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 7214–7224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Uhlířová, L.; Tůmová, E.; Chodová, D.; Vlčková, J.; Ketta, M.; Volek, Z.; Skřivanová, V. The effect of age, genotype and sex on carcass traits, meat quality and sensory attributes of geese. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 31, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Hoa, V.-B.; Seol, K.-H.; Seo, H.-W.; Seong, P.-N.; Kang, S.-M.; Kim, Y.-S.; Moon, S.-S.; Kim, J.-H.; Cho, S.-H. Meat quality characteristics of pork bellies in relation to fat level. Anim. Biosci. 2021, 34, 1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wen, C.; Jiang, X.; Ding, L.; Wang, T.; Zhou, Y. Effects of dietary methionine on growth performance, meat quality and oxidative status of breast muscle in fast-and slow-growing broilers. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 1707–1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wu, P.; Su, Y.; Feng, L.; Jiang, W.; Kuang, S.; Tang, L.; Jiang, J.; Liu, Y.; Zhou, X. Optimal DL-Methionyl-DL-Methionine Supplementation Improved Intestinal Physical Barrier Function by Changing Antioxidant Capacity, Apoptosis and Tight Junction Proteins in the Intestine of Juvenile Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella). Antioxidants 2022, 11, 1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zeitz, J.O.; Fleischmann, A.; Ehbrecht, T.; Most, E.; Friedrichs, S.; Whelan, R.; Gessner, D.K.; Failing, K.; Lütjohann, D.; Eder, K. Effects of supplementation of DL-methionine on tissue and plasma antioxidant status during heat-induced oxidative stress in broilers. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 6837–6847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Jeon, J.-J.; Kim, H.-J.; Kang, H.-K.; Kim, C.-H.; Kim, H.-S.; Hong, E.-C.; Jang, A.; Kim, S.-H. Effects of Dietary Thraustochytrid Schizochytrium sp. and Other Omega-3 Sources on Growth Performance, Carcass Characteristics, and Meat Quality of Broilers. Animals 2022, 12, 1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Long, S.; Liu, S.; Wu, D.; Mahfuz, S.; Piao, X. Effects of dietary fatty acids from different sources on growth performance, meat quality, muscle fatty acid deposition, and antioxidant capacity in broilers. Animals 2020, 10, 508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Warner, R.D.; Wheeler, T.L.; Ha, M.; Li, X.; Bekhit, A.E.-D.; Morton, J.; Vaskoska, R.; Dunshea, F.R.; Liu, R.; Purslow, P. Meat tenderness: Advances in biology, biochemistry, molecular mechanisms and new technologies. Meat Sci. 2022, 185, 108657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Purslow, P.; Archile-Contreras, A.; Cha, M. Meat Science and Muscle Biology Symposium: Manipulating meat tenderness by increasing the turnover of intramuscular connective tissue. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90, 950–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sermyagin, A.; Bykova, O.; Loretts, O.; Kostyunina, O.; Zinovieva, N.J.S.s.B. Genomic variability assess for breeding traits in holsteinizated Russian Black-and-White cattle using GWAS analysis and ROH patterns. Agric. Biol. 2020, 55, 257–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gebreselassie, G.; Berihulay, H.; Jiang, L.; Ma, Y.J.A. Review on genomic regions and candidate genes associated with economically important production and reproduction traits in sheep (Ovies aries). Animals 2020, 10, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Zhang, Y.; Zhang, J.; Gong, H.; Cui, L.; Zhang, W.; Ma, J.; Chen, C.; Ai, H.; Xiao, S.; Huang, L.J.M.s. Genetic correlation of fatty acid composition with growth, carcass, fat deposition and meat quality traits based on GWAS data in six pig populations. Meat Sci. 2019, 150, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Zhang, H.; Shen, L.-Y.; Xu, Z.-C.; Kramer, L.M.; Yu, J.-Q.; Zhang, X.-Y.; Na, W.; Yang, L.-L.; Cao, Z.-P.; Luan, P. Haplotype-based genome-wide association studies for carcass and growth traits in chicken. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 2349–2361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gao, G.; Gao, D.; Zhao, X.; Xu, S.; Zhang, K.; Wu, R.; Yin, C.; Li, J.; Xie, Y.; Hu, S.; et al. Genome-Wide association study-based identification of SNPs and haplotypes associated with goose reproductive performance and egg quality. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Guo, Q.; Huang, L.; Bai, H.; Wang, Z.; Bi, Y.; Chen, G.; Jiang, Y.; Chang, G. Genome-Wide Association Study of Potential Meat Quality Trait Loci in Ducks. Genes 2022, 13, 986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Leal-Gutiérrez, J.D.; Rezende, F.M.; Reecy, J.M.; Kramer, L.M.; Peñagaricano, F.; Mateescu, R.G. Whole genome sequence data provides novel insights into the genetic architecture of meat quality traits in beef. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 538640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Liu, R.; Sun, Y.; Zhao, G.; Wang, F.; Wu, D.; Zheng, M.; Chen, J.; Zhang, L.; Hu, Y.; Wen, J. Genome-wide association study identifies loci and candidate genes for body composition and meat quality traits in Beijing-You chickens. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e61172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Zhu, F.; Yin, Z.-T.; Wang, Z.; Smith, J.; Zhang, F.; Martin, F.; Ogeh, D.; Hincke, M.; Lin, F.-B.; Burt, D.W. Three chromosome-level duck genome assemblies provide insights into genomic variation during domestication. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 5932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zhu, F.; Cui, Q.-Q.; Hou, Z.-C. SNP discovery and genotyping using Genotyping-by-Sequencing in Pekin ducks. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 36223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Patel, R.K.; Jain, M. NGS QC Toolkit: A toolkit for quality control of next generation sequencing data. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e30619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Li, Y.; Gao, G.; Lin, Y.; Hu, S.; Luo, Y.; Wang, G.; Jin, L.; Wang, Q.; Wang, J.; Tang, Q. Pacific Biosciences assembly with Hi-C mapping generates an improved, chromosome-level goose genome. GigaScience 2020, 9, giaa114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, H.; Durbin, R. Fast and accurate short read alignment with Burrows–Wheeler transform. Bioinformatics 2009, 25, 1754–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. McKenna, A.; Hanna, M.; Banks, E.; Sivachenko, A.; Cibulskis, K.; Kernytsky, A.; Garimella, K.; Altshuler, D.; Gabriel, S.; Daly, M. The Genome Analysis Toolkit: A MapReduce framework for analyzing next-generation DNA sequencing data. Genome Res. 2010, 20, 1297–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Purcell, S.; Neale, B.; Todd-Brown, K.; Thomas, L.; Ferreira, M.A.; Bender, D.; Maller, J.; Sklar, P.; De Bakker, P.I.; Daly, M.J. PLINK: A tool set for whole-genome association and population-based linkage analyses. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 2007, 81, 559–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Zhou, X.; Stephens, M. Genome-wide efficient mixed-model analysis for association studies. Nat. Genet. 2012, 44, 821–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Zhao, J.H. gap: Genetic analysis package. J. Stat. Softw. 2008, 23, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Turner, S.D. qqman: An R package for visualizing GWAS results using QQ and manhattan plots. Biorxiv 2014, 005165. [Google Scholar]
  32. Karssen, L.C.; van Duijn, C.M.; Aulchenko, Y.S. The GenABEL Project for statistical genomics. FResearch 2016, 5, 914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Quinlan, A.R. BEDTools: The Swiss-army tool for genome feature analysis. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 2014, 47, 11.12.11–11.12.34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Wang, K.; Li, M.; Hakonarson, H. ANNOVAR: Functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38, e164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhou, Y.; Zhou, B.; Pache, L.; Chang, M.; Khodabakhshi, A.H.; Tanaseichuk, O.; Benner, C.; Chanda, S.K. Metascape provides a biologist-oriented resource for the analysis of systems-level datasets. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Uffelmann, E.; Huang, Q.Q.; Munung, N.S.; De Vries, J.; Okada, Y.; Martin, A.R.; Martin, H.C.; Lappalainen, T.; Posthuma, D. Genome-wide association studies. Nat. Rev. Methods Prim. 2021, 1, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nishimura, N.; Gotoh, T.; Oike, Y.; Yano, M. TMEM65 is a mitochondrial inner-membrane protein. PeerJ 2014, 2, e349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Nazli, A.; Safdar, A.; Saleem, A.; Akhtar, M.; Brady, L.I.; Schwartzentruber, J.; Tarnopolsky, M.A. A mutation in the TMEM65 gene results in mitochondrial myopathy with severe neurological manifestations. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2017, 25, 744–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Urushima, Y.; Haraguchi, M.; Yano, M. Depletion of TMEM65 leads to oxidative stress, apoptosis, induction of mitochondrial unfolded protein response, and upregulation of mitochondrial protein import receptor TOMM22. Biochem. Biophys. Rep. 2020, 24, 100870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Eelen, G.; Dubois, C.; Cantelmo, A.R.; Goveia, J.; Brüning, U.; DeRan, M.; Jarugumilli, G.; van Rijssel, J.; Saladino, G.; Comitani, F. Role of glutamine synthetase in angiogenesis beyond glutamine synthesis. Nature 2018, 561, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sancak, Y.; Peterson, T.R.; Shaul, Y.D.; Lindquist, R.A.; Thoreen, C.C.; Bar-Peled, L.; Sabatini, D.M. The Rag GTPases bind raptor and mediate amino acid signaling to mTORC1. Science 2008, 320, 1496–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Lei, H.-T.; Mu, X.; Hattne, J.; Gonen, T. A conformational change in the N terminus of SLC38A9 signals mTORC1 activation. Structure 2021, 29, 426–432.e428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Han, J.; Wang, Y. mTORC1 signaling in hepatic lipid metabolism. Protein Cell 2018, 9, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Sethna, S.; Scott, P.A.; Giese, A.P.; Duncan, T.; Jian, X.; Riazuddin, S.; Randazzo, P.A.; Redmond, T.M.; Bernstein, S.L.; Riazuddin, S.J.N.c. CIB2 regulates mTORC1 signaling and is essential for autophagy and visual function. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 3906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schiaffino, S.; Reggiani, C.; Akimoto, T.; Blaauw, B. Molecular mechanisms of skeletal muscle hypertrophy. J. Neuromuscul. Dis. 2021, 8, 169–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Pang, B.; Yu, X.; Bowker, B.; Zhang, J.; Yang, Y.; Zhuang, H. Effect of meat temperature on moisture loss, water properties, and protein profiles of broiler pectoralis major with the woody breast condition. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 1283–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Certo, M.; Moore, V.D.G.; Nishino, M.; Wei, G.; Korsmeyer, S.; Armstrong, S.A.; Letai, A. Mitochondria primed by death signals determine cellular addiction to antiapoptotic BCL-2 family members. Cancer Cell 2006, 9, 351–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Carrasco-Rozas, A.; Fernández-Simón, E.; Suárez-Calvet, X.; Piñol-Jurado, P.; Alonso-Pérez, J.; de Luna, N.; Schoser, B.; Meinke, P.; Domínguez-González, C.; Hernández-Laín, A. BNIP3 is involved in muscle fiber atrophy in late-onset pompe disease patients. Am. J. Pathol. 2022, 192, 1151–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Antonicka, H.; Lin, Z.-Y.; Janer, A.; Aaltonen, M.J.; Weraarpachai, W.; Gingras, A.-C.; Shoubridge, E.A. A high-density human mitochondrial proximity interaction network. Cell Metab. 2020, 32, 479–497.e479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhang, S.; Cheng, Z.M.; Yu, J.L.; Lu, K.; Xu, S.J.; Lu, Y.; Liu, T.; Xia, B.J.; Huang, Z.; Zhao, X.Y. Malic enzyme 2 promotes the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma via increasing triglyceride production. Cancer Med. 2021, 10, 6795–6806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kozák, J. Variations of geese under domestication. Poult. Sci. J. 2019, 75, 247–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Muroya, S.; Ueda, S.; Komatsu, T.; Miyakawa, T.; Ertbjerg, P. MEATabolomics: Muscle and meat metabolomics in domestic animals. Metabolites 2020, 10, 188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lonergan, E.H.; Zhang, W.; Lonergan, S.M. Biochemistry of postmortem muscle—Lessons on mechanisms of meat tenderization. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 184–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Suman, S.P.; Wang, Y.; Gagaoua, M.; Kiyimba, F.; Ramanathan, R. Proteomic approaches to characterize biochemistry of fresh beef color. J. Proteom. 2023, 281, 104893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. He, J.; Zhang, P.; Shen, L.; Niu, L.; Tan, Y.; Chen, L.; Zhao, Y.; Bai, L.; Hao, X.; Li, X.; et al. Short-chain fatty acids and their association with signalling pathways in inflammation, glucose and lipid metabolism. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 6356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Patra, A.K. Agriculture. Meta-analyses of effects of phytochemicals on digestibility and rumen fermentation characteristics associated with methanogenesis. J. Sci. Food 2010, 90, 2700–2708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The SNP density in the goose genome within 1Mb window size.
Figure 1. The SNP density in the goose genome within 1Mb window size.
Animals 13 02089 g001
Figure 2. The results of PCA conducted on the goose population based on the whole genome SNPs. Note: The points in the plot represent individual members of the population.
Figure 2. The results of PCA conducted on the goose population based on the whole genome SNPs. Note: The points in the plot represent individual members of the population.
Animals 13 02089 g002
Figure 3. The Manhattan and Q-Q plots for different meat quality traits in male Sichuan white geese. Note: The plots are presented for the following traits: CFC (A,B); CLR (C,D); L* (meat lightness) (E,F); b* (meat yellowness) (G,H); SF (I,J). The threshold for significance is set at 1 × 10−7.
Figure 3. The Manhattan and Q-Q plots for different meat quality traits in male Sichuan white geese. Note: The plots are presented for the following traits: CFC (A,B); CLR (C,D); L* (meat lightness) (E,F); b* (meat yellowness) (G,H); SF (I,J). The threshold for significance is set at 1 × 10−7.
Animals 13 02089 g003
Figure 4. The functional analysis for the genes within 1 Mb within SNPs associated with goose meat quality traits.
Figure 4. The functional analysis for the genes within 1 Mb within SNPs associated with goose meat quality traits.
Animals 13 02089 g004
Table 1. The primer sequence of MALDI-TOF MS.
Table 1. The primer sequence of MALDI-TOF MS.
SNPs2nd-PCRP2nd-PCRPUEP_SEQ
chr13:25432644ACGTTGGATGGAAATACCCTGTTGTCTCCCACGTTGGATGACCTGTTTGACTCCTTTTGGagaaCCTGTTGTCTCCCTCACTC
ctg930:11921ACGTTGGATGTGCCACCGCAGGGATCACGACGTTGGATGTGGCAGCAGGGTGGGGAAAGCCCCCTCCTGCACCTT
chr36:5611038ACGTTGGATGTTCCCCCCTCGTTTGAATTGACGTTGGATGCCCAGTCTGAATTCCAACACtCGCTTTGATTTAGTTATTTTACTC
ctg2092:176333ACGTTGGATGGGAATATGTAGACTACGTCTGACGTTGGATGTTTTGGACAAACAGGAGACCcccaTAGACTACGTCTGCCATCT
chr29:8278595ACGTTGGATGAAGGATTTGGGAAGCAGGAACACGTTGGATGTGCACCGGGGAGGAGGAGACAGGAACCGAGGGAAATGC
chr9:33911228ACGTTGGATGCCTGGAGGCAATCAAAGATGACGTTGGATGCTTAAGTCGCCTTGGTACACCAGGAGTTAAGGGAGAAAAT
chr1:24867798ACGTTGGATGAGCCTGATGCAGTCACATCCACGTTGGATGGTGTGTGCCAGACAAAACTCGCTGCCTGCCCAGAACT
chr7:16992800ACGTTGGATGTCACATTGGCAGGGTCCAACACGTTGGATGTTATAGTCTGCTCTGGACTGgtCAGGGTCCAACTCAGTCTCC
chr12:31782870ACGTTGGATGACAAAGAACACATCGCAAGGACGTTGGATGGGCAGCAGCTTTCAGCAAACCAATAATGTTTAACGTTAGACTC
chr12:31781825ACGTTGGATGTTCTGCAACGCTCGAAATCCACGTTGGATGTTTAACCTACGCATGCCTCCCCAAAGACCTGTTGAGA
chr2:36812553ACGTTGGATGGTGGAAGAAGACATCACTGGACGTTGGATGGCAGGAGAAAAAAGCATAAGtcGATCTTACTTTTTTATCTTCCATTA
Table 2. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the meat quality traits of male Sichuan white geese at 70 days of age.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the meat quality traits of male Sichuan white geese at 70 days of age.
TraitsNumberMeanSTDVMinimumMaximumCV (%)
CFC1999.921.894.6915.520.19
MCFD19975.070.9472.2677.540.01
CLR19413.133.014.6622.360.23
L* (meat lightness)20523.63.6515.5337.290.15
a* (meat redness)20548.773.0239.7656.060.06
b* (meat yellowness)20519.52.3213.0530.80.12
SF (kgf)1973.810.831.665.820.22
Note: CFC: crude fat content; MCFD: moisture content of freeze dried; CLR: cooking loss rate; L*: meat lightness; a*: meat redness); b*: meat yellowness; SF (kgf): shear force.
Table 3. Summary of the 43 snp markers potentially associated with five meat quality traits in male Sichuan white geese.
Table 3. Summary of the 43 snp markers potentially associated with five meat quality traits in male Sichuan white geese.
SNPChrPosition (bp)Allele1Traitsp ValueGene
chr11:9193757chr119193757G/ACFC8.12 × 10−8TMEM65
chr19:2113530chr192113530C/TCFC6.34 × 10−8SMAD6
chr19:17076992chr1917076992T/GCLR1.03 × 10−7SYTC2
chr27:11913710chr2711913710G/ACLR3.16 × 10−8MSI1H
chr1:42733613chr142733613T/CL* (meat lightness)7.56 × 10−8LIN1
chr14:440052chr14440052T/CL* (meat lightness)8.15 × 10−8GSS
chr1:1971942chr11971942C/Tb* (meat yellowness)2.74 × 10−8EXTL3
chr1:24867798chr124867798C/Gb* (meat yellowness)7.82 × 10−8PRSS55
chr1:31137893chr131137893C/Tb* (meat yellowness)9.31 × 10−8PTP4A1
chr3:31387295chr331387295G/Ab* (meat yellowness)5.43 × 10−9TMEM19
chr3:31387314chr331387314G/Ab* (meat yellowness)3.57 × 10−8TMEM19
chr3:31387324chr331387324A/Gb* (meat yellowness)3.57 × 10−8TMEM19
chr7:8983345chr78983345A/Gb* (meat yellowness)3.20 × 10−8ACKR3
chr7:16992800chr716992800C/Tb* (meat yellowness)7.84 × 10−8CHIN
chr7:4199190chr74199190A/Gb* (meat yellowness)4.47 × 10−8GULP1
chr9:33911228chr933911228A/Gb* (meat yellowness)7.35 × 10−8DOCK1
chr11:27962909chr1127962909A/Gb* (meat yellowness)3.43 × 10−8PP4R1
chr11:27964588chr1127964588G/Tb* (meat yellowness)4.66 × 10−9SLCO5A1
chr13:25432644chr1325432644C/Tb* (meat yellowness)2.55 × 10−9CATC
chr13:25426268chr1325426268G/Ab* (meat yellowness)2.62 × 10−9CATC
chr13:25389761chr1325389761T/Gb* (meat yellowness)9.87 × 10−8CATC
chr26:4307814chr264307814T/Cb* (meat yellowness)4.26 × 10−8PP4R1
chr29:8720675chr298720675T/Cb* (meat yellowness)1.16 × 10−8MRPS2
chr33:5370910chr335370910A/Cb* (meat yellowness)6.90 × 10−8NO40
chr33:5659799chr335659799A/Cb* (meat yellowness)3.33 × 10−8PUM1
chr33:3667950chr333667950C/Tb* (meat yellowness)8.99 × 10−8RRAGC
chr36:5611038chr365611038G/Tb* (meat yellowness)4.99 × 10−8GOGA7
ctg2092:176333ctg2092176333C/Tb* (meat yellowness)6.16 × 10−8RXRA
ctg745:127150ctg745127150A/Gb* (meat yellowness)5.53 × 10−8NCOA2
chr4:23787309chr423787309A/Gb* (meat yellowness)2.08 × 10−8None
chr4:49863664chr449863664T/Ab* (meat yellowness)5.49 × 10−8None
chr25:12875901chr2512875901A/Gb* (meat yellowness)5.77 × 10−9None
chr29:8278595chr298278595C/Tb* (meat yellowness)6.64 × 10−8None
ctg834:24329ctg83424329C/Tb* (meat yellowness)5.15 × 10−8None
ctg930:11921ctg93011921G/Ab* (meat yellowness)5.30 × 10−9None
ctg956:92804ctg95692804C/Tb* (meat yellowness)2.73 × 10−8None
chr2:36812553chr236812553C/TSF (kgf)5.94 × 10−8BMF
chr2:36812412chr236812412G/CSF (kgf)9.22 × 10−8BMF
chr7:33558795chr733558795A/TSF (kgf)3.84 × 10−8NEMP2
chr7:33558758chr733558758C/ASF (kgf)8.04 × 10−8NEMP2
chr7:33558832chr733558832T/CSF (kgf)9.30 × 10−8NEMP2
chr12:31782870chr1231782870A/GSF (kgf)2.78 × 10−10NAD-ME
chr12:31781825chr1231781825G/ASF (kgf)3.62 × 10−9NAD-ME
Note: The threshold for significance significant and potentially significant association were set at 4.94 × 10−9 and 1 × 10−7 respectively. ACKR3: Atypical chemokine receptor 3; BMF: Bcl-2-modifying factor; CATC: Dipeptidyl peptidase 1; CHIN: N-chimaerin; DOCK1: Dedicator of cytokinesis protein 1; EXTL3: Exostosin-like 3; GOGA7: Golgin subfamily A member 7; GSS: Glutamine synthetase; GULP1: PTB domain-containing engulfment adapter protein 1; LIN1: LINE-1 reverse transcriptase homolog; MRPS2: 28S ribosomal protein S2, mitochondrial; MSI1H: RNA-binding protein Musashi homolog 1; NAD-ME: NAD-dependent malic enzyme, mitochondrial; NCOA2: Nuclear receptor coactivator 2; NEMP2: Nuclear envelope integral membrane protein 2; NO40: Nucleolar protein of 40 kDa; PP4R1: Serine/threonine-protein phosphatase 4 regulatory subunit 1; PRSS55:Serine protease 55; PTP4A1: Protein tyrosine phosphatase type IVA 1; PUM1: Pumilio homolog 1; RRAGC: Ras-related GTP-binding protein C; RXRA: Retinoic acid receptor RXR-alpha; SLCO5A1: Solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 5A1; SMAD6: Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 6; SYTC2: Probable threonine--tRNA ligase 2, cytoplasmic; TMEM19: Transmembrane protein 19; TMEM65: Transmembrane protein 65; None: No annotated genes were found in the specified region of the genome. L*: meat lightness; b*: meat yellowness.
Table 4. The frequency and genotypes of the selected SNPs associated with the goose meat quality.
Table 4. The frequency and genotypes of the selected SNPs associated with the goose meat quality.
TraitsNumberSNPsGenotypes (Frequency %)
b* (meat yellowness)203chr13:25432644CCCTTT
17.61 ± 2.07 b (1.97)17.56 ± 2.92 b (0.66)19.31 ± 0.25 a (97.37)
b* (meat yellowness)203ctg930:11921AAGAGG
19.18 ± 0.23 b (72.37)20.28 ± 0.41 a (23.03)19.03 ± 0.88 b (4.61)
b* (meat yellowness)203chr36:5611038GGGTTT
19.83 ± 2.76 a (0.58)17.71 ± 1.04 b (4.62)19.44 ± 0.22 a (94.80)
b* (meat yellowness)203ctg2092:176333CCTCTT
18.04 ± 1.15 b (3.49)19.24 ± 0.45 a (13.56)19.48 ± 0.26 a (70.93)
b* (meat yellowness)203chr29:8278595CCCTTT
17.99 ± 2.80 b (0.56)19.21 ± 0.60 a (13.56)19.39 ± 0.23 a (85.88)
b* (meat yellowness)203chr9:33911228AAGAGG
20.32 ± 1.62 a (2.27)19.52 ± 0.75 b (8.52)19.31 ± 0.23 b (89.20)
b* (meat yellowness)203chr1:24867798CCGCGG
16.33 ± 2.79 b (0.57)19.08 ± 0.72 a (9.09)19.41 ± 0.23 a (90.34)
b* (meat yellowness)203chr7:16992800CCCTTT
15.43 ± 2.77 b (1.12)19.30 ± 0.57 a (13.48)19.40 ± 0.23 a (85.39)
SF203chr12:31782870AAGAGG
3.12 ± 0.97 b (1.12)3.82 ± 0.25 a (8.43)3.74 ± 0.08 a (90.45)
SF203chr12:31781825AAGAGG
3.72 ± 0.08 b (87.01)3.89 ± 0.22 a (12.99)\
SF203chr2:36812553CCCTTT
\3.60 ± 0.22 b (15.49)3.73 ± 0.09 a (84.51)
Note: Different letters in the same row indicate a significant difference between the Genotypes (p < 0.05).
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

Gao, G.; Zhang, K.; Huang, P.; Zhao, X.; Li, Q.; Xie, Y.; Yin, C.; Li, J.; Wang, Z.; Zhong, H.; et al. Identification of SNPs Associated with Goose Meat Quality Traits Using a Genome-Wide Association Study Approach. Animals 2023, 13, 2089. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13132089

AMA Style

Gao G, Zhang K, Huang P, Zhao X, Li Q, Xie Y, Yin C, Li J, Wang Z, Zhong H, et al. Identification of SNPs Associated with Goose Meat Quality Traits Using a Genome-Wide Association Study Approach. Animals. 2023; 13(13):2089. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13132089

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gao, Guangliang, Keshan Zhang, Ping Huang, Xianzhi Zhao, Qin Li, Youhui Xie, Chunhui Yin, Jing Li, Zhen Wang, Hang Zhong, and et al. 2023. "Identification of SNPs Associated with Goose Meat Quality Traits Using a Genome-Wide Association Study Approach" Animals 13, no. 13: 2089. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13132089

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