Association of ACK1, TFRC polymorphism with diarrhoeagenic E. coli adhesion patterns and their jejunal expression profile in Indian Ghurrah pigs
- 28 Downloads
A total of 9 SNPs located in TFRC and ACK1 genes of SSC13q41 genomic region were examined for their association with the adhesion pattern of native Indian pigs using local isolate of diarrhoeagenic E. coli. Phenotypic evaluation of adhesion pattern of 150 pigs revealed 116 animals positive for adhesion, whereas 34 animals had non-adhesive phenotype. Among the adhesive animals, 6, 87 and 23 pigs were strongly adhesive, weakly adhesive and adhesive, respectively. PCR–RFLP study revealed 8 polymorphic SNPs with low to moderate PIC ranging from 7.39 to 37.25% and low to high heterozygosities (8–70%). The loci g.291 C > T, rs81218930 C > T, rs318751568 C > T of TFRC and g.93222 C > A g.94600 C > T of ACK1 showed significant departure from HWE. The genotypic frequencies of the SNPs as well as the haplotypes did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) across the adhesion patterns except one SNP (ACK1-g.107371 A > C). Among the g.107371 A > C genotypes observed, CA was associated with non-adhesive phenotype. Furthermore, TFRC mRNA expression levels were found to be significantly (P < 0.05) different among various adhesive phenotypes, whereas that of ACK1 was significantly (P < 0.05) different between non-adhesive and adhesive groups. The significant association of SNP (ACK1-g.107371 A > C), which was also previously reported to influence ETECF4 mediated diarrhoea susceptibility, implicates its wider application in genetic control of piglet diarrhoea. Furthermore, the up-regulation of TFRC gene expression in adhesive group supports its proposed role in activation of immune cells against E. coli and intracellular iron transport.
KeywordsNative pig E. coli TFRC ACK1 MAT RFLP qPCR
Activated CDC42 kinase 1
All India coordinated research project
Single-nucleotide polymorphism database
F4 fimbriae of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli
Hardy Weinberg equilibrium (χ2-probability)
Microscopic adhesion test
Number of observations
Polymorphism information content
Restriction fragment length polymorphism
Sus scrofa (pig)
The authors are thankful to the Director, IVRI, Izzatnagar, Bareilly, for providing necessary facilities to carry out this research work. Furthermore, they are thankful to owners of different slaughter houses in and around Bareilly for facilitating collection of samples.
The authors are thankful to Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) for providing necessary financial assistance in the form of an institute project (Grant No. IXX10577) to corresponding author as well as institute fellowship to first author during the study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted.
- Chaora N (2013) Breed susceptibility to enterotoxigenic and enteroaggragative Escherichia coli strains in South African pigs. Thesis, Master of Science in Agriculture (Animal Science), University of KwaZulu-NatalGoogle Scholar
- Edfors-Lilja I, Gustafsson U, Duval-Iflah Y, Ellergren H, Jo-hansson M, Juneja RK, Marklund L, Andersson L (1995) The porcine intestinal receptor for Escherichia coli K88ab, K88ac: regional localization on chromosome 13 and influence of IgG response to the K88 antigen. Anim Genet 26:237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Eliades NG, Eliades DG (2009). HAPLOTYPE ANALYSIS: software for analysis of haplotypes data. Distributed by the authors. Forest Genetics and Forest Tree Breeding, Georg-Augst University Goettingen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- Jacobsen M, Cirera S, Joller D, Esteso G, Kracht SS, Edfors I, Bendixen C, Archibald AL, Vogeli P, Neuenschwander S, Bertschinger HU, Rampoldi A, Andersson L, Fredholm M, Jorgensen CB (2011) Characterisation of five candidate genes within the ETEC F4ab/ac candidate region in pigs. BMC Res Notes 4:225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Jorgensen CB, Cirera S, Archibald AL, Anderson L, Fredholm M, Edfors-Lilja I (2004) Porcine polymorphisms and methods for detecting them. In: International application published under the patent cooperation treaty (PCT), PCT/DK2003/000807; WO:2004/048606-A2Google Scholar
- Meijerink E, Neuenschwander S, Fries R, Dinter A, Bertschinger HU, Stranzinger G, Vogeli P (2000) A DNA polymorphism influencing alpha(l,2) fucosyltransferase activity of the pig FUT1 enzyme determines susceptibility of small intestinal epithelium to Escherichia coli F18 adhesion. Immunogenetics 52:129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rita DM, Wbipp SC, Max FR (1994) Resistance of Chinese Meishan, Fengjing, and Minzhu pigs to the K88ac + strain of Escherichia coli. Am J Vet Res 55:333–338Google Scholar
- Sambrook J, Russell DW (2001) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 3rd edn. Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory Press, New York, pp 527–535Google Scholar
- Sellwood R (1980) Genetic susceptibility to intestinal infection-animal models. In: Rotter JI, Samloff IM, Rimoin DL (eds) The genetics and heterogeneity of common gastrointestinal disorders. Academic Press, London, pp 537–549Google Scholar
- Shome R, Shome BR, Rahman M, Kumar A, Murugkar HV, Rahman H, Bujarbaruah K (2005) Plasmid diversity in Escherichia coli strains isolated from piglet diarrhoea. Indian J Anim Sci 75:196–198Google Scholar