Egg productivity of EGFP-transgenic ducks

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31548/animal2019.03.020

Keywords:

laying, transgenic bird, morphometric parameters of egg, EGFP gene, shaoxing breed, duck.

Abstract

The results of the analysis of egg production of two generations transgenic ducks (TD) by EGFP gene are presented in the article. TD were obtained by transferring foreign DNA using sperm (SMGT). The egg production of first-generation TD (experimental group) was compared with that of non-transgenic ducks (control group) of the same age and line. The experiment used 14 ducks (7 transgenic in the experimental group and 7 non-transgenic in the control group). A total of 800 eggs (400 in each group) were analyzed in terms of egg mass, egg height and width, egg shape index, egg shell thickness and strength, point of lay. The performance of the experimental group by egg weight was 65.85 ± 0.22 g, control 69.70 ± 0.23 g. The length and width of the egg in the experimental group was 5.92 ± 0.01 and 4.41 ± 0.01 cm, in the control 6.01 ± 0.01 and 4.50 ± 0.01 cm. The egg shape index in the experimental group was 74.50 ± 0.17%, in the control 74.93 ± 0.16%. The shell thickness in the experimental group was 473.80 ± 1.30 μm, in the control 450.10 ± 1.20 μm. The strength of the shell was 4839.90 ± 125.02 g in the experimental group and 4789.13 ± 38.43 g in the control group. Point of lay in the experimental group was 147.86 ± 21.20 days, in the control group 146.14 ± 23.51 days. Thus, the experimental group was inferior to the egg weight control group by 5.52% (3.85 g) and the shape index by 0.43%, with a larger shell thickness of 5.27% (23.70 μm), a shell strength of 1.06% (50.77 g), and point of lay by 1.18% (1.72 days). In the second generation, the performance of 20 TD (descendants of first generation TD) was compared to the performance of 20 non-transgenic ducks of the same age and line. The experimental group (TD) was inferior to the control (non-transgenic) by: live weight by 3.62% (56.9 g); of the index of the form by 0.24%, with the control group by weight of eggs by 0.26% (0.18 g) and lay (by 0.94%). The studies show that TD do not have clear differences from their non-transgenic analogues, that is, the effect of the transgene did not affect the parameters analyzed in this study.

Author Biographies

  • P. V. Korol, Institute of Animal Breeding and Genetics nd. a. M. V Zubets NAAS, Інститут розведення і генетики тварин імені М. В. Зубця НААН
    PhD student
  • S. O. Kostenko, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine
    Doctor of Biological Sciences, Professor, Department of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology
  • O. M. Konoval, Ukrainian laboratory of quality and safety of agricultural products, National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, Українська лабораторія якості і безпеки продукції АПК, Національного університету біоресурсів та природокористування України
    Ph.D. of Biological Sciences
  • Lizhi Lu, Institute of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Інститут тваринництва і ветеринарії, Чжецьзянської академії сільськогосподарських наук
    Ph.D, Professor
  • Liumeng Li, Zhuji Guowei Poultry Development Co, Ltd, Zhuji Guowei Poultry Development Co, Ltd
    Senior engineer in genetic breeding and general manager

References

Korshunova, L. G., Karapetjan, R. V., Fisinin V. I. (2013). Metody geneticheskoj modifikacii i selekcija sel'skohozjajstvennoj pticy [Genetic modification methods and breeding of poultry]. Agricultural Biology. 6:3. 15. https://doi.org/10.15389/agrobiology.2013.6.3eng

Lillico, S. G., McGrew, M. J., Sherman, A., & Sang, H. M. (2005). Transgenic chickens as bioreactors for protein-based drugs. Drug Discovery Today. 10(3):191-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6446(04)03317-3

Lillico, S. G., Sherman, A., McGrew, M. J., Robertson, C. D., Smith, J., Haslam, C., Barnard P., Radcliffe P. A., Mitrophanous K. A., Elliot E. A., Sang, H. M. (2007). Oviduct-specific expression of two therapeutic proteins in transgenic hens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104(6):1771-1776. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610401104

Dyck, M. K., Lacroix, D., Pothier, F., & Sirard, M.-A. (2003). Making recombinant proteins in animals - different systems, different applications. Trends in Biotechnology. 21(9):394-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7799(03)00190-2

Hunter, C. V., Tiley, L. S., & Sang, H. M. (2005). Developments in transgenic technology: applications for medicine. Trends in Molecular Medicine. 11(6):293-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molmed.2005.04.001

Koo, B. C., Kwon, M. S., Kim, D., Kim, S. A., Kim, N.-H., & Kim, T. 2017. Production of transgenic chickens constitutively expressing human erythropoietin (hEPO): Problems with uncontrollable overexpression of hEPO gene. Biotechnology and Bioprocess Engineering. 22(1):22-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-016-0590-x

Arthur, J. (2017). Duck Eggs. Egg Innovations and Strategies for Improvements. 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800879-9.00003-2

Shaoxing Ducks [S]: DB 33068/T 02.1-2012.- Zhuji: Zhuji Quality and Technique Supervision Bureau, 2012.- (National Standard of China). P.40.

Published

2019-12-31