A status of guinea fowl ( Numida meleagris ) and pheasant ( Phasianus colchicus ) population transferred from wildlife to the breeding assessed based on the histone H1.c’ polymorphic variation
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2019
A status of guinea fowl ( Numida meleagris ) and pheasant ( Phasianus colchicus ) population transferred from wildlife to the breeding assessed based on the histone H1.c’ polymorphic variation
The genetic changes accompanying a relocation of population to the captivity are mostly adverse and usually associated with deterioration of its status. These alterations are greater in small populations in which a loss of genetic variation limits the capability to adaptation. In this work, a status of small-sized guinea fowl and pheasant population relocated to the breeding is presented. These populations were analyzed based on the polymorphism of histone H1.c’, the protein for the first time identified as a heterogeneous. Histone H1.c’ was resolved in the two-dimensional polyacrylamide gel into the isoform H1.c’1 and H1.c’2, so its heterogeneity corresponds to the presence of homozygous phenotypes c’1 and c’2. Because no histone H1.c’ heterozygous phenotype was found, a significant phenotypic diversity in the guinea fowl (P = 0.023) and pheasant (P = 0.018) population was detected, together with its departures from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (P < 0.0001). Both populations characterize an extreme loss of genetic diversity due to complete inbreeding (F = 1) and an impact of genetic drift which, according to the expected values for guinea fowl (0.192) and pheasant (0.182) population, may strongly diminish allele frequency in the following generations. Thus, condition of populations evaluated based on the histone H1.c’ polymorphic variants, recognized as reasonable informative genetic markers (polymorphism information content of guinea fowl = 0.4 and pheasant = 0.38), corresponds to reduction of genetic variability caused by inbreeding and genetic drift. Therefore, it seems that rearing in the captivity can bring negative effects that favor restriction of animals’ vitality and survival of the population.
FrankhamR.Genetic adaptation to captivity in species conservation programs. Mol Ecol2008; 17(1): 325–333.
2.
IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (version 2018-1). Gland: IUCN, 2018.
3.
CuervoJJMollerAP.Colonial, more widely distributed and less abundant bird species undergo wider population fluctuations independent of their population trend. PLoS ONE2017; 12(3): e0173220.
4.
BallouJDLeesCFaustLJ, et al.Demographic and genetic management of captive populations. In: KleinmanDGThompsonKVKirk BaerC (eds) Wild mammals in captivity: principles and techniques for zoo management. Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press, 2010, pp. 263–283.
5.
BouzatJL.Conservation genetics and population bottlenecks: the role of chance, selection and history. Conserv Genet2010; 11: 463–478.
6.
AllendorfFW.Genetic drift and the loss of alleles versus heterozygosity. Zoo Biol1986; 5: 181–190.
7.
ShafferML.Minimum population size for species conservation. Bioscience1981; 31: 131–134.
8.
LandeR.Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science1988; 241(4872): 1455–1460.
9.
CharlesworthDWillisJH.The genetics of inbreeding depression. Nat Rev Genet2009; 10: 783–796.
10.
FauvergueXVerckenEMalausaT, et al. The biology of small, introduced populations, with special reference to biological control. Evol Appl2012; 5(5): 424–443.
11.
VignaliMWorkmanJL.Location and function of linker histones. Nat Struct Biol1998; 5(12): 1025–1028.
12.
WidomJ.Chromatin structure: linking structure to function with histone H1. Curr Biol1998; 8(22): R788–R791.
13.
HappelNDoeneckeD.Histone H1 and its isoforms: contribution to chromatin structure and function. Gene2009; 431(1–2): 1–12.
14.
FyodorovDVZhouB-RSkoultchiAI, et al. Emerging roles of linker histones in regulating chromatin structure and function. Nat Rev Mol Cell Bio2017; 19: 192–206.
15.
ParseghianM.What is the role of histone H1 heterogeneity?AIMS Biophys2015; 2: 724–772.
16.
KowalskiA.Nuclear and nucleolar activity of linker histone variant H1.0. Cell Mol Biol Lett2016; 21: 15.
KowalskiAPalygaJ.Modulation of chromatin function through linker histone H1 variants. Biol Cell2016; 108(12): 339–356.
20.
BustinMCatezFLimJH.The dynamics of histone H1 function in chromatin. Mol Cell2005; 17(5): 617–620.
21.
Millan-ArinoLIzquierdo-BouldstridgeAJordanA.Specificities and genomic distribution of somatic mammalian histone H1 subtypes. Biochim Biophys Acta2016; 1859(3): 510–519.
22.
KowalskiAPalygaJ.Linker histone subtypes and their allelic variants. Cell Biol Int2012; 36(11): 981–996.
23.
KowalskiA.Significance of the avian linker histone (H1) polymorphic variation. J Biosci2018; 43: 751–761.
24.
KowalskiAPałygaJ.Polymorphic linker histone H1 variants in breeding and conservative duck populations. Ann Anim Sci2014; 14: 33–42.
25.
KowalskiAPałygaJKnagaS, et al. A shift in the erythrocyte histone H1 complement following selection in quail (Coturnix japonica). Czech J Anim Sci2015; 60: 105–115.
26.
KowalskiAMarkowskiJ.Brown hare’s (Lepus europaeus) histone H1 variant H1.2 as an indicator of anthropogenic stress. Arch Environ Con Tox2018; 75(4): 576–584.
27.
Gornicka-MichalskaEKowalskiAPalygaJ.Allelic isoforms of the chicken and duck histone H1.a. Cell Mol Biol Lett2014; 19(1): 116–125.
28.
LoweAHarrisSAshtonP.Ecological genetics: design, analysis and application. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
29.
GregoriusHR.The meaning of genetic variation within and between subpopulations. Theor Appl Genet1988; 76(6): 947–951.
AndersonJAChurchillGAAutriqueJE, et al. Optimizing parental selection for genetic linkage maps. Genome1993; 36(1): 181–186.
32.
KowalskiAPałygaJGórnicka-MichalskaE.Two polymorphic liner histone loci in guinea fowl erythrocytes. CR Biol2011; 334: 6–12.
33.
KowalskiAPalygaJGornicka-MichalskaE, et al. Phenotypic variation of erythrocyte linker histone H1.c in a pheasant (Phasianus colchicus L.) population. Genet Mol Biol2010; 33(3): 475–478.
34.
PalygaJ.Genes for polymorphic H1 histones are linked in the Japanese quail genome. Biochem Genet1998; 36(3–4): 93–103.
35.
KowalskiAKnagaS.Evidence on the stability of histone H1.a polymorphic variants during selection in quail. Arch Anim Breed2017; 60: 145–151.
36.
KowalskiA.A heterogeneity of the pheasant (Phasianus colchicus L.) erythrocyte histone H1 subtype H5. CR Biol2016; 339(9–10): 357–363.
37.
WoodworthLMMontgomeryMEBriscoeDA, et al. Rapid genetic deterioration in captive populations: causes and conservation implications. Conserv Genet2002; 3: 277–288.
SaccheriIKuussaariLKankareM, et al. Inbreeding and extinction in a butterfly metapopulation. Nature1998; 392: 491–494.
40.
BotsteinDWhiteRLSkolnickM, et al. Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet1980; 32(3): 314–331.
41.
HallBKHallgrimssonB.Strickberger’s evolution. 4th ed.Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers, 2011.
42.
VapaLBDjanMRObrehtDR, et al. Genetic variability of pheasant (Phasianus spp.) in breeding station Ristovaca. Proc Nat Sci Srpska Novi Sad2004; 107: 5–11.
43.
JiangPLangQFangS, et al. A genetic diversity comparison between captive individuals and wild individuals of Elliot’s pheasant (Syrmaticus ellioti) using mitochondrial DNA. J Zhejiang Univ-Sc B2005; 6(5): 413–417.
44.
SharmaDAppa RaoKBCSinghKP, et al. Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) for evaluation genetic relationship among varieties of guinea fowl. Genet Anal-Biomol E1998; 14: 125–128.
45.
FrankhamRLoebelDA.Modeling problems in conservation genetics using captive Drosophila populations—rapid genetic adaptation to captivity. Zoo Biol1992; 11: 333–342.
46.
CharlesworthD.Effects of inbreeding on the genetic diversity of populations. Philos T R Soc B2003; 358: 1051–1070.
47.
ChristieMRMarineMLFrenchRA, et al. Genetic adaptation to captivity can occur in a single generation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA2012; 109(1): 238–242.
48.
MarkertJAChamplinDMGutjahr-GobellR, et al. Population genetic diversity and fitness in multiple environments. BMC Evol Biol2010; 10: 205.
49.
PimmSLJonesHLDiamondJ.On the risk of extinction. Am Nat1988; 132: 757–785.
50.
GriffenBDDrakeJM.A review of extinction in experimental populations. J Anim Ecol2008; 77: 274–1287.
51.
JuleKRLeaverLALeaSEG. The effects of captive experience on reintroduction survival in carnivores: a review and analysis. Biol Conserv2008; 141: 355–363.
52.
WitzenbergerKAHochkirchA.Ex situ conservation genetics: a review of molecular studies on the genetic consequences of captive breeding programmes for endangered animal species. Biodivers Conserv2011; 20: 1843–1861.
