1
Genetic Influence of Host on Fatty Acid Composition in Beef Cattle
Chinyere Ekine-Dzivenu (PhD Candidate)Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
2
Outline
• Background • Objectives• Materials and methods• Results and discussion• Conclusion• Acknowledgement
3
Background
CONSUMERAWARENESS
4
Background Cont’d
• SFA Increased Plasma cholesterol
- Cardiovascular diseases - Cancer - Obesity
• MUFA & PUFA Reduced plasma cholesterol
• CLA Anti-carcinogenic, anti-atherosclerotic
Anti-diabetic
Anti-ObesityType of dietary fat (fatty acid profile) matters more than the amount of fat.
5
Background Cont’dImproving beef fatty acid composition
• Nutrition approach– Added cost – Change not permanent– May affect flavor
• Traditional genetic improvement approach– Permanent and accumulative change BUT difficult/expensive to measure and measured after slaughter
• Genomics – Marker assisted selection/genomic selection
6
ObjectivesEstimate heritability of fatty acids in beef brisket adipose tissue, subcutaneous adipose tissue and longissimus luborum muscle to assess the potential for genetic improvement
Discover SNP markers associated with FA profile in beef for marker assisted selection or marker based diet management
Estimate phenotypic and genetic correlation between FAs within each tissue in order to preventantagonism when genetic selection is made
1.
2.
3.
7
Materials and methods
8
Phenotype
Genotype
1536 SNPS
• Over 80 FA in the brisket adipose on 223 beef steers• Over 80 FA in the subcutaneous adipose and longissimus luborum muscle on
1366 animals• Heritability and correlations estimated using univariate and bivariate animal
model implemented in ASreml after accounting for fixed effects.• 961 polymorphic markers for Bayesian candidate gene association study on
adjusted data
9
Results and discussion
10
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
9c-1
4:1
9c-1
6:1
9c-1
7:1
9c-1
8:1
10t-
18:1
11c-
18:1
11t-
18:1
13c-
18:1
18:2
_n6
SF
A
BF
A
SF
A_B
FA
MU
FA
PU
FA
Sum
_tra
ns18
:1
Sum
_CLA
Hea
lth_I
ndex
020
50
valu
e
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
9c_1
4:1
9c_1
6:1
9c_1
7:1
9c_1
8:1
10t_
18:1
11c_
18:1
11t_
18:1
13c_
18:1
18_2
n6
SF
A
BF
A
SF
A_B
FA
MU
FA
PU
FA
Sum
_tra
ns18
:1
Sum
_CLA
Hea
lth_I
ndex
020
50
valu
e
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
9c_1
4:1
9c_1
6:1
9c_1
7:1
9c_1
8:1
10t_
18:1
11c_
18:1
11t_
18:1
13c_
18:1
18:2
_n6
SF
A
BF
A
SF
A_B
FA
MU
FA
PU
FA
Sum
_tra
ns18
:1
Sum
_CLA
Hea
lth_I
ndex
020
50
valu
e%
FAM
E B.
Adip
ose
% FA
ME
S.Ad
ipos
e%
FAM
E M
uscl
eFig1. Variation among individual animals for different fatty acids
Each dot represents an individual animal
11
Longissimus Luborum Muscle (n=1366)
Subcutaneous Adipose (n=1366)
Brisket Adipose (n=223)
Fatty Acids Mean h2±SE Mean h2±SE Mean h2±SE14:0 2.8033 0.6 ± 0.13 3.2036 0.5 ± 0.16 3.5452 0.17 ± 0.1215:0 0.5024 0.22 ± 0.1 0.6423 0.25 ± 0.12 0.6209 0.31 ± 0.1216:0 24.6089 0.54 ± 0.1 25.0924 0.28 ± 0.09 25.5585 0.05 ± 0.1217:0 1.5484 0.31 ± 0.11 1.7088 0.43 ± 0.14 1.4033 0.17 ± 0.1118:0 12.4073 0.33 ± 0.09 10.5448 0.43 ± 0.1 8.9234 0.12 ± 0.11
9c-14:1 0.6401 0.54 ± 0.09 1.0459 0.41 ± 0.1 1.4845 0.51 ± 0.119c-16:1 3.4078 0.69 ± 0.1 4.2466 0.51 ± 0.12 5.595 0.13 ± 0.119c-17:1 1.1913 0.17 ± 0.07 1.3774 0.18 ± 0.09 1.4865 0.04 ± 0.19c-18:1 36.6758 0.48 ± 0.09 37.9173 0.17 ± 0.07 40.1263 0.13 ± 0.1210t-18:1 2.0279 0.27 ± 0.09 2.9079 0.3 ± 0.1 0.5399 0.11 ± 0.1111c-18:1 1.8358 0.24 ± 0.09 1.9604 0.03 ± 0.04 2.4717 0.04 ± 0.1111t-18:1 0.4406 0.24 ± 0.08 0.5455 0.16 ± 0.07 0.5399 0.11 ± 0.1113c-18:1 0.3958 0.51 ± 0.09 0.4869 0.37 ± 0.09 0.7455 0.43 ± 0.118:2n-6 4.3871 0.28 ± 0.09 1.8761 0.43 ± 0.1 1.2634 0.17 ± 0.13
Sumtrans18:1 3.2517 0.28 ± 0.09 4.4859 0.32 ± 0.09 2.2963 0.11 ± 0.11SumCLA 0.395 0.21 ± 0.07 0.7043 0.30 ± 0.08 0.59 0.06 ± 0.1
SFA 42.4241 0.48 ± 0.1 41.5983 0.39 ± 0.1 40.2913 0.07 ± 0.11MUFA 48.5617 0.48 ± 0.09 52.9408 0.35 ± 0.09 55.4148 0.06 ± 0.1PUFA 6.696 0.26 ± 0.09 2.2902 0.42 ± 0.09 2.8065 0.12 ± 0.12BFA 1.3562 0.17 ± 0.08 1.7139 0.24 ± 0.08 1.4874 0.03 ± 0.1
SFA+BFA 43.7803 0.48 ± 0.09 43.3122 0.38 ± 0.1 41.7787 0.06 ± 0.11n-6 5.9261 0.27 ± 0.09 2.0457 0.42 ± 0.09 1.4631 0.16 ± 0.13
n-6/n-3 8.6281 0.44 ± 0.11 9.2625 0 ± 0 7.9869 0.03 ± 0.1Health Index 1.5654 0.54 ± 0.1 1.4875 0.38±0.11 1.4888 0.16 ± 0.12
Health Index = ΣMUFA +ΣPUFA 4X14:0+16:0
High
Moderate
Low
Table 1. Heritability of selected fatty acids in 3 beef tissues
HI =
12
Trait SFA MUFA PUFA SumCLA Health_IndexSFA -0.99±0 -0.31±0.06 -0.70±0.52 -0.91±0.01MUFA -0.99±0.03 0.17±0.06 0.70±0.55 0.9±0.01PUFA -0.41±0.64 0.20±0.82 0.37±0.61 0.23±0.06sumCLA -0.29±0.06 0.20±0.06 0.61±0.04 0.19±0.06Health Index -0.99±0.01 0.96±0.05 0.48±0.45 0.68±0.44
Table 2. Phenotypic (above diagonal) and genetic (below diagonal) correlation between selected fatty acid groups in beef tissues
Trait SFA MUFA PUFA SumCLA Health IndexSFA -0.59±0.09 -0.38±0.11 -0.32±0.09 -0.86±0.02MUFA -0.77±0.06 -0.5±0.06 -0.01±0.08 0.45±0.08PUFA -0.18±0.18 -0.47±0.13 0.1±0.24 0.43±0.1sumCLA -0.02±0.19 -0.08±0.17 0.31±0.14 0.23±0.11Health Index -0.89±0.03 0.75±0.06 0.09±0.19 -0.02±0.19
Bris
ket
adip
ose
Subc
utan
eous
ad
ipos
eLo
ngis
sim
us
Lubo
rum
Trait SFA MUFA PUFA SumCLA Health IndexSFA -0.98±0 0.05±0.09 -0.08±0.09 -0.85±0.03MUFA -0.98±0.01 -0.23±0.09 -0.03±0.1 0.85±0.03PUFA -0.15±0.17 -0.06±0.17 0.39±0.14 -0.09±0.11sumCLA -0.56±0.13 0.47±0.15 0.25±0.08 0.06±0.1Health Index -0.84±0.06 0.87±0.05 -0.05±0.18 0.36±0.17
13
AC
AD
LA
NK
RD
1A
P2B
1A
TIC
AT
P2B
1B
DH
1B
RC
A1
CA
MK
2DC
PT
2C
RH
R1
EIF
3HF
5G
AP
43IR
F2
LPL
NR
1H3
PN
PLA
2R
AR
AR
UN
X1T
1S
CD
SLC
27A2
TF
PI2
TH
RS
PT
RH
R
C14C15C16C17C18C1419cC1619cC1719cC1819cC18110tC18111cC18111tC18113cC182n6C171aisumtrans181sumCLASFAMUFAPUFABFASFABFAn6n6n3Health_index
Fig.2. Schematic overview of associations of fatty acids with SNPs in candidate genes.
Allele substitution effect indicated by color key
14
Rec
epto
rs •SCD
•PNPLA2•LPL•F5•CPT2•ACADL•BDH1•ATIC
Tran
spor
ter •SLC27A2
•ATP2B1•AP2B1
Tran
scrip
tion
Regu
lato
r
•NR1H3•RUNX1T1•IRF2•BRCA1•ANKRD1
•CRHR1•RARA•TRHR
•EIF3H
Enzy
me
Tran
slatio
n R
egul
ator
Fig 3. Variation in FA among individuals as a result of variation in different cellular processes
15
Conclusions
16
• Variation exists in the amount of each fatty acid in beef tissues.
• Individual animals vary in the amount of each FA deposited in tissues.
• Each fatty acid in beef is a complex trait (influenced by several genes).
• Identified markers throw light on processes that can cause variation in FA between animals.
• Results show possibility of selecting beef with superior genetics to improve not only beneficial FA content but also eating quality of beef.
• Results show possibility of simultaneously improving beneficial FA in the adipose. Attention should be paid to the moderate negative correlation between muscle MUFA and PUFA.
17
Future directionsUse a higher density SNP panel (bovine 50K SNP chip) to capture more markers
explaining a significant amount of variation for beneficial fatty acids among individual animals.
Work in progressPhenotypic and genetic correlation of fatty acids in the subcutaneous adipose tissue
and longissimus luborum muscle with carcass and meat quality traits
18
Acknowledgement• Supervisor: Dr. Changxi Li • Group members, co-investigators and committee
Liuhong Chen Michael DuganMichael Vinsky Jennifer Aalhus
John Basarab Noelia AldaiPaul Stothard Tim McAllisterFiona Buchanan Carolyn FitzsimmonsErasmus Okine Zhiquan Wang
• Funding:
19
Thank you