ISSN: 2536-7099
Model: Open Access/Peer Reviewed
DOI: 10.31248/JASVM
Start Year: 2016
Email: jasvm@integrityresjournals.org
https://doi.org/10.31248/JASVM2024.445 | Article Number: 13652A4A2 | Vol.9 (4) - August 2024
Received Date: 26 May 2024 | Accepted Date: 26 June 2024 | Published Date: 30 August 2024
Author: Yeigba, B. Japhet
Keywords: noiler., Mx1 (Myxovirus resistance 1) protein, Nigerian Indigenous Chicken
This research was conducted on three strains of Nigerian indigenous chicken with nucleotide sequences retrieved from the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). The translated sequences were also used to model the possible tertiary structure of the proteins they encode for; this was done on the Swiss model server. Multiple sequence alignment analyses and evolutionary relatedness among the sequences identify the shared patterns that may determine their structure and functionality. Having determined the physicochemical properties of the proteins, their structure and their phylogenetic relatedness, the subcellular location was further predicted as this identifies the site in which the protein functions. The Mx1 (Myxovirus resistance 1) protein is pivotal in the defense against viral infection. The structures of observed similarities and variants in the structure of the Mx1 protein were obtained, and similarities and variants in structure, and to fully understand the factors responsible for the variant, secondary structures prediction was carried out. Variation among the Mx1 protein may have been a result of environmental factors owing to how different strains are exposed to environmental conditions. Variation in structure may also result from environmental factors owing to the fact that these strains of chickens may have been exposed to different environmental conditions throughout their phylogenic history, which may have influenced the structure of the protein. These variations could be because of mutations and adaption over the years. The phylogenetic tree showing genetic relatedness in the Mx1 gene among chickens studied revealed low genetic distance, indicating that the four strains are closely related. The variations in genetic differentiation were not significantly observed across poultry breeds; this state states the genetic relatedness of Mx1 protein in the four strains. Genetic difference in the Mx1 gene among strains used in this study ranges from 0.574-0.751. Normal feather had the highest value of 0.751, followed by Noiler (0.744), Naked neck (0.601) and Frizzle feather (0.574) respectively. The amino acid sequence also shows that the sequence of the strains was been has been maintained by natural selection and is conserved to maintain the structure or function of a protein. The findings of this study reveal a strong grasp of the genetic resemblance of the Mx1 protein among the four. Breeders should incorporate knowledge of genetic variation in the Mx1 protein among chicken strains into breeding strategies, taking the full potential of the strains studied.
| Agaviezor, B. O., & Chukwuemeka, C. S. (2020). Genetic diversity of pituitary transcription factor 1 (PIT 1) gene in Nigerian local and exotic chicken. Nigeria Journal Animal Production, 47(1),12-18. https://doi.org/10.51791/njap.v47i1.172 |
||||
| Armenteros, A. J. J., Sønderby, C. K., Sønderby, S. K., Nielsen, H., & Winther, O. (2017). DeepLoc: prediction of protein subcellular localization using deep learning. Bioinformatics, 33(21), 3387-3395. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btx431 |
||||
| Arnheiter, H., Skuntz, S., Noteborn, M., Chang, S., & Meier, E. (1990). Transgenic mice with intracellular immunity to influenza virus. Cell, 62(1), 51-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(90)90239-B |
||||
| Bernasconi, D., Schultz, U., & Staeheli, P. (1995). The interferon-induced Mx protein of chickens lacks antiviral activity. Journal of Interferon and Cytokine Research, 15(1), 47-53. https://doi.org/10.1089/jir.1995.15.47 |
||||
| Damas, J., Hughes, G. M., Keough, K. C., Painter, A., Persky, N. S., Corbo, M., Hiller, M., Koepfli, K.-P., Pfenning, A. R., Zhao, H., Genereux, D. P., Swofford, R., Pollard, K. S., Ryder, O. A., Nweeia, M. T., Lindblad-Toh, K., Teeling, E. C., Karlsson, E. K., & Lewin, H. A. (2020). Broad host range of SARS-CoV-2 Predicted by Comparative and Structural Analysis of ACE2 in Vertebrates. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(36), 22311-22322 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010146117 |
||||
| Ewald, S. J., Kapczynski, D. R., Livant, E. J., Suarez, D. L., Ralph, J., McLeod, S., & Miller, C. (2011). Association of Mx1 Asn631 variant alleles with reductions in morbidity, early mortality, viral shedding, and cytokine responses in chickens infected with a highly pathogenic avian influenza virus. Immunogenetics, 63, 363-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00251-010-0509-1 |
||||
| FAOSTAT (2012). FAO statistical yearbook, FAO, Rome. Retrieved from http://faostat fao.org/ | ||||
| Flaming, K., Johnston, D., Zwart, Y., & Yokoyama, K. (1998). Maximum using far and intermediate field sites. Earth Planetary Science Letters, 163, 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0012-821X(98)00198-8 |
||||
| Hagiwara, K., Nakaya, T., & Onuma, M. (2020). Characterization of Myxovirus resistance protein in birds showing different susceptibilities to highly pathogenic influenza virus. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, 82(5), 619-625. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.19-0408 |
||||
| Haller, O., & Kochs, G. (2002). Interferonâinduced mx proteins: dynaminâlike GTPases with antiviral activity. Traffic, 3(10), 710-717. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0854.2002.31003.x |
||||
| Kimura, M., & Ohta, T. (1974). On some principles governing molecular evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 71(7), 2848-2852. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.71.7.2848 |
||||
| Ko, J. H., Jin, H. K., Asano, A., Takada, A., Ninomiya, A., Kida, H., Hokiyama, H., Ohara, M., Tsuzuki, M., Nishibori, M., & Watanabe, T. (2002). Polymorphisms and the differential antiviral activity of the chicken Mx gene. Genome Research, 12(4), 595-601. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.210702 |
||||
| Pandey, A. K., Tantia, M. S., Kumar, D., Mishra, B., Chaudhary, P., & Vish, R. K. (2002). Microsatellite analysis of three poultry breeds of India. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 15(11), 1536 -1542. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2002.1536 |
||||
| Samuel, C. E. (2001). Antiviral actions of interferons. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 14(4), 778-809. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.14.4.778-809.2001 |
||||
| Singh, R. V., Saxena, V. K., & Sharma, D. (2002). Technological developments in the poultry subsector. In Technology options for sustainable livestock production in India: Proceedings of the Workshop on Documentation, Adoption, and Impact of Livestock Technologies in India, 18-19 Jan 2001, ICRISAT-Patancheru, India. New Delhi 110 012, India and Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: National Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research and International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 220 pp (Vol. 137, p. 90). | ||||
| Sonaiya, E. B., & Swan, S. E. J. (2004). Small scale poultry production. Technical guide. FAO Animal Production and Health. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome. Pp. 1-119. | ||||
| Tamura, K., Stecher, G., Peterson, D., Filipski, A., & Kumar, S. (2013). MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 30(12), 2725-2729. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst197 |
||||
| Yakubu, A., Kuje, D., & Okpeku, M. (2009). Principal components as measures of size and shape in Nigerian indigenous chickens. Thai Journal of Agricultural Science, 42(3), 167-176. | ||||