Carotenoid dynamics in Atlantic salmon

BACKGROUND: Carotenoids are pigment molecules produced mainly in plants and heavily exploited by a wide range of organisms higher up in the food-chain. The fundamental processes regulating how carotenoids are absorbed and metabolized in vertebrates are still not fully understood. We try to further this understanding here by presenting a dynamic ODE (ordinary differential equation) model to describe and analyse the uptake, deposition, and utilization of a carotenoid at the whole-organism level. The model focuses on the pigment astaxanthin in Atlantic salmon because of the commercial importance of understanding carotenoid dynamics in this species, and because deposition of carotenoids in the flesh is likely to play an important life history role in anadromous salmonids. RESULTS: The model is capable of mimicking feed experiments analyzing astaxanthin uptake and retention over short and long time periods (hours, days and years) under various conditions. A sensitivity analysis of the model provides information on where to look for possible genetic determinants underlying the observed phenotypic variation in muscle carotenoid retention. Finally, the model framework is used to predict that a specific regulatory system controlling the release of astaxanthin from the muscle is not likely to exist, and that the release of the pigment into the blood is instead caused by the androgen-initiated autolytic degradation of the muscle in the sexually mature salmon. CONCLUSION: The results show that a dynamic model describing a complex trait can be instrumental in the early stages of a project trying to uncover underlying determinants. The model provides a heuristic basis for an experimental research programme, as well as defining a scaffold for modelling carotenoid dynamics in mammalian systems

Characterisation of a novel paralog of scavenger receptor class B member I (SCARB1) in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Red flesh colour is a unique trait found in some salmonid genera. Carotenoid pigments are not synthesized <it>de novo </it>in the fish, but are provided by dietary uptake. A better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the cellular uptake and deposition of carotenoids could potentially be used to improve the low muscle deposition rate that is typically found in farmed Atlantic salmon. In addition, from an evolutionary point of view, the establishment and maintenance of this trait is still poorly understood. It has been demonstrated in several species that scavenger receptor class B, member 1 (<it>SCARB1</it>) is involved in intestinal absorption of carotenoids, which makes this gene a possible source of genetic variation in salmonid flesh pigmentation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In this study, a novel paralog of <it>SCARB1 (SCARB1-2) </it>was detected through screening for genetic variation in Atlantic salmon <it>SCARB1</it>. Full length <it>SCARB1-2 </it>encodes a protein with 89% identity to Atlantic salmon <it>SCARB1</it>, except for the C-terminal cytoplasmic tail that shows only 12% identity. The most prominent site of <it>SCARB1 </it>mRNA expression was in the mid gut, while a five-fold lower level was detected in Atlantic salmon skeletal muscle and liver. The <it>SCARB1-2 </it>mRNA was equally expressed in liver, muscle and mid gut, and at a lower level than <it>SCARB1 </it>mRNA. A total of seven different <it>SCARB1-2 </it>alleles comprising repetitive enhancer of zeste motifs (EZH2) were identified in the founding parents of a resource Atlantic salmon population. We mapped the <it>SCARB1-2 </it>paralog to a region on Atlantic salmon chromosome 1, containing a putative QTL for flesh colour. Addition of the <it>SCARB1-2 </it>marker increased the significance of this QTL, however the large confidence interval surrounding the QTL precludes confirmation of <it>SCARB1-2 </it>as a causative gene underlying variation in this trait.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We have characterised a novel paralog of <it>SCARB1 (SCARB1-2)</it>, have mapped it to Atlantic salmon chromosome 1 and have described its expression in various tissues. Mapping with <it>SCARB1-2 </it>alleles added further evidence for a QTL affecting flesh colour on this chromosome, however further studies are needed to confirm a functional role for this gene in flesh colour pigmentation.</p

Genomic and functional gene studies suggest a key role of beta-carotene oxygenase 1 like (bco1l) gene in salmon flesh color

publishedVersio

RNA sequencing reveals candidate genes and polymorphisms related to sperm DNA integrity in testis tissue from boars

© The Author(s). 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background: Sperm DNA is protected against fragmentation by a high degree of chromatin packaging. It has been demonstrated that proper chromatin packaging is important for boar fertility outcome. However, little is known about the molecular mechanisms underlying differences in sperm DNA fragmentation. Knowledge of sequence variation influencing this sperm parameter could be beneficial in selecting the best artificial insemination (AI) boars for commercial production. The aim of this study was to identify genes differentially expressed in testis tissue of Norwegian Landrace and Duroc boars, with high and low sperm DNA fragmentation index (DFI), using transcriptome sequencing. Results: Altogether, 308 and 374 genes were found to display significant differences in expression level between high and low DFI in Landrace and Duroc boars, respectively. Of these genes, 71 were differentially expressed in both breeds. Gene ontology analysis revealed that significant terms in common for the two breeds included extracellular matrix, extracellular region and calcium ion binding. Moreover, different metabolic processes were enriched in Landrace and Duroc, whereas immune response terms were common in Landrace only. Variant detection identified putative polymorphisms in some of the differentially expressed genes. Validation showed that predicted high impact variants in RAMP2, GIMAP6 and three uncharacterized genes are particularly interesting for sperm DNA fragmentation in boars. Conclusions: We identified differentially expressed genes between groups of boars with high and low sperm DFI, and functional annotation of these genes point towards important biochemical pathways. Moreover, variant detection identified putative polymorphisms in the differentially expressed genes. Our results provide valuable insights into the molecular network underlying DFI in pigs.publishedVersio

Genome editing in food and feed production – implications for risk assessment. Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment

The Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (VKM) initiated this work to examine the extent to which organisms developed by genome-editing technologies pose new challenges in terms of risk assessment. This report considers whether the risk assessment guidance on genetically modified organisms, developed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), can be applied to evaluate potential risks of organisms developed by genome editing. Background Gene technology has allowed for the transfer of genes between organisms and species, and thereby to design altered genotypes with novel traits, i.e. GMOs. A new paradigm started in the early 2000s with the development of genome-editing techniques. Unlike traditional genetic modification techniques resulting in insertion of foreign DNA fragments at random locations in the genome, the new genome-editing techniques additionally open for a few single nucleotide edits or short insertions/deletions at a targeted site in an organism’s genome. These new techniques can be applied to most types of organisms, including plants, animals and microorganisms of commercial interest. An important question is how the novel, genome-edited organisms should be evaluated with respect to risks to health and the environment. The European Court of Justice decided in 2018 to include genome-edited organisms in the GMO definition and hence in the regulatory system already in place. This implies that all products developed by genome-editing techniques must be risk-assessed within the existing regulatory framework for GMOs. The European and Norwegian regulatory frameworks regulate the production, import and placing on the market of food and feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs, as well as the release of GMOs into the environment. The assessment draws on guidance documents originally developed by EFSA for risk assessment of GMOs, which were drawn up mainly to address risks regarding insertion of transgenes. The new genome-editing techniques, however, provide a new continuum of organisms ranging from those only containing a minor genetic alteration to organisms containing insertion or deletion of larger genomic regions. Risk assessment of organisms developed by genome editing The present discourse on how new genome-editing techniques should be regulated lacks an analysis of whether risk assessment methodologies for GMOs are adequate for risk assessment of organisms developed through the use of the new genome-editing techniques. Therefore, this report describes the use of genome-editing techniques in food and feed production and discusses challenges in risk assessment with the regulatory framework. Specifically, this report poses the question as to whether the EFSA guidance documents are sufficient for evaluating risks to health and environment posed by genome-edited plants, animals and microorganisms. To address these questions, the report makes use of case examples relevant for Norway. These examples, intended for food and feed, include oilseed rape with a modified fatty acid profile, herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant crops, sterile salmon, virus-resistant pigs and hornless cattle. The report considers all aspects of the stepwise approach as described in the EFSA guidance documents. Conclusions The inherent flexibility of the EFSA guidance makes it suitable to cover health and environmental risk assessments of a wide range of organisms with various traits and intended uses. Combined with the embedded case-by-case approach the guidance is applicable to genome-edited organisms. The evaluation of the guidance demonstrates that the parts of the health and environmental risk assessment concerned with novel traits (i.e. the phenotype of the organism) may be fully applied to all categories of genome-edited organisms. ............acceptedVersionpublishedVersio

Genome editing in food and feed production – implications for risk assessment. Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Steering Committee of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment

The Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (VKM) initiated this work to examine the extent to which organisms developed by genome-editing technologies pose new challenges in terms of risk assessment. This report considers whether the risk assessment guidance on genetically modified organisms, developed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), can be applied to evaluate potential risks of organisms developed by genome editing. Background Gene technology has allowed for the transfer of genes between organisms and species, and thereby to design altered genotypes with novel traits, i.e. GMOs. A new paradigm started in the early 2000s with the development of genome-editing techniques. Unlike traditional genetic modification techniques resulting in insertion of foreign DNA fragments at random locations in the genome, the new genome-editing techniques additionally open for a few single nucleotide edits or short insertions/deletions at a targeted site in an organism’s genome. These new techniques can be applied to most types of organisms, including plants, animals and microorganisms of commercial interest. An important question is how the novel, genome-edited organisms should be evaluated with respect to risks to health and the environment. The European Court of Justice decided in 2018 to include genome-edited organisms in the GMO definition and hence in the regulatory system already in place. This implies that all products developed by genome-editing techniques must be risk-assessed within the existing regulatory framework for GMOs. The European and Norwegian regulatory frameworks regulate the production, import and placing on the market of food and feed containing, consisting of or produced from GMOs, as well as the release of GMOs into the environment. The assessment draws on guidance documents originally developed by EFSA for risk assessment of GMOs, which were drawn up mainly to address risks regarding insertion of transgenes. The new genome-editing techniques, however, provide a new continuum of organisms ranging from those only containing a minor genetic alteration to organisms containing insertion or deletion of larger genomic regions. Risk assessment of organisms developed by genome editing The present discourse on how new genome-editing techniques should be regulated lacks an analysis of whether risk assessment methodologies for GMOs are adequate for risk assessment of organisms developed through the use of the new genome-editing techniques. Therefore, this report describes the use of genome-editing techniques in food and feed production and discusses challenges in risk assessment with the regulatory framework. Specifically, this report poses the question as to whether the EFSA guidance documents are sufficient for evaluating risks to health and environment posed by genome-edited plants, animals and microorganisms. To address these questions, the report makes use of case examples relevant for Norway. These examples, intended for food and feed, include oilseed rape with a modified fatty acid profile, herbicide-tolerant and pest-resistant crops, sterile salmon, virus-resistant pigs and hornless cattle. The report considers all aspects of the stepwise approach as described in the EFSA guidance documents. Conclusions The inherent flexibility of the EFSA guidance makes it suitable to cover health and environmental risk assessments of a wide range of organisms with various traits and intended uses. Combined with the embedded case-by-case approach the guidance is applicable to genome-edited organisms. The evaluation of the guidance demonstrates that the parts of the health and environmental risk assessment concerned with novel traits (i.e. the phenotype of the organism) may be fully applied to all categories of genome-edited organisms. ............publishedVersio

Genome editing in food and feed production – implications for risk assessment. Opinion of the Steering Committee of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment

publishedVersio

Genome editing in food and feed production – implications for risk assessment. Opinion of the Steering Committee of the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment

Source at https://vkm.no/I denne rapporten vurderer Vitenskapskomiteen for mat og miljø (VKM) utfordringer knyttet til helse- og miljørisikovurdering av genomredigerte organismer til mat- og fôrproduksjon. VKM har gått gjennom veiledningen for risikovurdering av genmodifiserte organismer (GMO) som Den europeiske myndighet for næringsmiddeltrygghet (EFSA) har utviklet, og vurdert om veiledningen også kan brukes til å vurdere risiko ved organismer som er utviklet ved genomredigering. VKM har selv tatt initiativ til denne rapporten.The Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment (VKM) initiated this work to examine the extent to which organisms developed by genome-editing technologies pose new challenges in terms of risk assessment. This report considers whether the risk assessment guidance on genetically modified organisms, developed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), can be applied to evaluate potential risks of organisms developed by genome editing