schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

519 Effects of different pen lighting Sources on growth, feed efficiency and gene expression in blood and liver of broiler chickens

Several reports suggest use of light-emitting diode (LED) lights of various colors may improve efficiency of broiler production. The objective was to compare effects of different light sources on growth and gene expression of broilers. In a subset of a larger experiment, 48 Cobb 500 strain chicks we... Full description

Journal Title: Journal of Animal Science 2017, Vol. 95(suppl4), pp.253-254
Main Author: Hirtz, L. K
Other Authors: Rodrigues, R. O , Leiva, T , Martins, M. F , Leigh, M. B , Firman, J. F , Schumacher, L. G , Mcfadden, T. B
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language:
Subjects:
Quelle: Oxford University Press
ID: ISSN: 0021-8812 ; E-ISSN: 1525-3163 ; DOI: 10.2527/asasann.2017.519
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: oxford10.2527/asasann.2017.519
title: 519 Effects of different pen lighting Sources on growth, feed efficiency and gene expression in blood and liver of broiler chickens
format: Article
creator:
  • Hirtz, L. K
  • Rodrigues, R. O
  • Leiva, T
  • Martins, M. F
  • Leigh, M. B
  • Firman, J. F
  • Schumacher, L. G
  • Mcfadden, T. B
subjects:
  • Broiler Performance
  • Led Light
  • Rna - Sequencing
ispartof: Journal of Animal Science, 2017, Vol. 95(suppl4), pp.253-254
description: Several reports suggest use of light-emitting diode (LED) lights of various colors may improve efficiency of broiler production. The objective was to compare effects of different light sources on growth and gene expression of broilers. In a subset of a larger experiment, 48 Cobb 500 strain chicks were assigned to one of six lighting treatments with 8 birds per treatment: 1) incandescent, INC); 2) fluorescent (FL); 3) white LED (WL); 4) green LED (GL); 5) blue LED (BL); or 6) green LED on days 1-9 followed by blue LED on days 10-17 (GB). Treatments were administered by using bulbs that met the above specifications. Feed and water were available ad libitum. At termination on day 17, body weight and feed intake were determined and blood and liver samples were obtained for RNA analysis. Blood RNA was used for RNAseq analysis on a subset of samples (n = 4/treatment for WL, GL and BL) to identify target genes for further analysis. Treatment effects were analyzed by orthogonal contrasts and genes were considered differentially expressed (DE) when P ≤ 0.001 and FDR ≤ 0.10. Comparing white and colored LED light (WL vs the average of GL and BL) revealed 63 DE genes. Comparing GL to BL identified 107 DE genes. Integrative analysis using DAVID software indicated: Functions including signal, secreted, blood microparticles, extracellular exosomes and plasma membrane; KEGG pathways, including PPAR signaling; and Tissue specificity, indicating liver. Based on those analyses, we selected 12 DE genes for analysis in liver RNA by qPCR. Target genes included AvBD9, APOA4, CAT, CHAC1, FOXN2, HMGCS1, IL15, SCD, SPINK5, TTR, UBAP2, XPA. Target gene expression was normalized to that of a reference gene, RPL4, and data were log2 transformed before analysis using Proc GLM of SAS. Genes were considered DE at P < 0.05. There was no effect ( P > 0.05) of any lighting treatment on expression of the selected genes of interest in liver. Similar to liver gene expression, light treatments had no effect on broiler growth, feed intake or feed efficiency to day 17 ( P > 0.05). In summary, different light treatments altered gene expression in blood cells but not liver and had no effect on broiler performance. Conflicting gene expression in blood and liver suggests cell type specificity in response to lighting. Similarity of broiler performance under different lighting suggests LED lights of various colors can be used to reducing operating costs without penalizing performance.
language:
source: Oxford University Press
identifier: ISSN: 0021-8812 ; E-ISSN: 1525-3163 ; DOI: 10.2527/asasann.2017.519
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 0021-8812
  • 00218812
  • 1525-3163
  • 15253163
url: Link


@attributes
ID633396755
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid10.2527/asasann.2017.519
sourceidoxford
recordidTN_oxford10.2527/asasann.2017.519
sourceformatXML
sourcesystemOther
display
typearticle
title519 Effects of different pen lighting Sources on growth, feed efficiency and gene expression in blood and liver of broiler chickens
creatorHirtz, L. K ; Rodrigues, R. O ; Leiva, T ; Martins, M. F ; Leigh, M. B ; Firman, J. F ; Schumacher, L. G ; Mcfadden, T. B
ispartofJournal of Animal Science, 2017, Vol. 95(suppl4), pp.253-254
identifier
subjectBroiler Performance ; Led Light ; Rna - Sequencing
descriptionSeveral reports suggest use of light-emitting diode (LED) lights of various colors may improve efficiency of broiler production. The objective was to compare effects of different light sources on growth and gene expression of broilers. In a subset of a larger experiment, 48 Cobb 500 strain chicks were assigned to one of six lighting treatments with 8 birds per treatment: 1) incandescent, INC); 2) fluorescent (FL); 3) white LED (WL); 4) green LED (GL); 5) blue LED (BL); or 6) green LED on days 1-9 followed by blue LED on days 10-17 (GB). Treatments were administered by using bulbs that met the above specifications. Feed and water were available ad libitum. At termination on day 17, body weight and feed intake were determined and blood and liver samples were obtained for RNA analysis. Blood RNA was used for RNAseq analysis on a subset of samples (n = 4/treatment for WL, GL and BL) to identify target genes for further analysis. Treatment effects were analyzed by orthogonal contrasts and genes were considered differentially expressed (DE) when P ≤ 0.001 and FDR ≤ 0.10. Comparing white and colored LED light (WL vs the average of GL and BL) revealed 63 DE genes. Comparing GL to BL identified 107 DE genes. Integrative analysis using DAVID software indicated: Functions including signal, secreted, blood microparticles, extracellular exosomes and plasma membrane; KEGG pathways, including PPAR signaling; and Tissue specificity, indicating liver. Based on those analyses, we selected 12 DE genes for analysis in liver RNA by qPCR. Target genes included AvBD9, APOA4, CAT, CHAC1, FOXN2, HMGCS1, IL15, SCD, SPINK5, TTR, UBAP2, XPA. Target gene expression was normalized to that of a reference gene, RPL4, and data were log2 transformed before analysis using Proc GLM of SAS. Genes were considered DE at P < 0.05. There was no effect ( P > 0.05) of any lighting treatment on expression of the selected genes of interest in liver. Similar to liver gene expression, light treatments had no effect on broiler growth, feed intake or feed efficiency to day 17 ( P > 0.05). In summary, different light treatments altered gene expression in blood cells but not liver and had no effect on broiler performance. Conflicting gene expression in blood and liver suggests cell type specificity in response to lighting. Similarity of broiler performance under different lighting suggests LED lights of various colors can be used to reducing operating costs without penalizing performance.
sourceOxford University Press
version2
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
search
creatorcontrib
0Hirtz, L. K
1Rodrigues, R. O
2Leiva, T
3Martins, M. F
4Leigh, M. B
5Firman, J. F
6Schumacher, L. G
7McFadden, T. B
title519 Effects of different pen lighting Sources on growth, feed efficiency and gene expression in blood and liver of broiler chickens
descriptionSeveral reports suggest use of light-emitting diode (LED) lights of various colors may improve efficiency of broiler production. The objective was to compare effects of different light sources on growth and gene expression of broilers. In a subset of a larger experiment, 48 Cobb 500 strain chicks were assigned to one of six lighting treatments with 8 birds per treatment: 1) incandescent, INC); 2) fluorescent (FL); 3) white LED (WL); 4) green LED (GL); 5) blue LED (BL); or 6) green LED on days 1-9 followed by blue LED on days 10-17 (GB). Treatments were administered by using bulbs that met the above specifications. Feed and water were available ad libitum. At termination on day 17, body weight and feed intake were determined and blood and liver samples were obtained for RNA analysis. Blood RNA was used for RNAseq analysis on a subset of samples (n = 4/treatment for WL, GL and BL) to identify target genes for further analysis. Treatment effects were analyzed by orthogonal contrasts and genes were considered differentially expressed (DE) when P ≤ 0.001 and FDR ≤ 0.10. Comparing white and colored LED light (WL vs the average of GL and BL) revealed 63 DE genes. Comparing GL to BL identified 107 DE genes. Integrative analysis using DAVID software indicated: Functions including signal, secreted, blood microparticles, extracellular exosomes and plasma membrane; KEGG pathways, including PPAR signaling; and Tissue specificity, indicating liver. Based on those analyses, we selected 12 DE genes for analysis in liver RNA by qPCR. Target genes included AvBD9, APOA4, CAT, CHAC1, FOXN2, HMGCS1, IL15, SCD, SPINK5, TTR, UBAP2, XPA. Target gene expression was normalized to that of a reference gene, RPL4, and data were log2 transformed before analysis using Proc GLM of SAS. Genes were considered DE at P < 0.05. There was no effect ( P > 0.05) of any lighting treatment on expression of the selected genes of interest in liver. Similar to liver gene expression, light treatments had no effect on broiler growth, feed intake or feed efficiency to day 17 ( P > 0.05). In summary, different light treatments altered gene expression in blood cells but not liver and had no effect on broiler performance. Conflicting gene expression in blood and liver suggests cell type specificity in response to lighting. Similarity of broiler performance under different lighting suggests LED lights of various colors can be used to reducing operating costs without penalizing performance.
subject
0broiler performance
1LED light
2RNA-sequencing
general
010.2527/asasann.2017.519
1Oxford Journals
sourceidoxford
recordidoxford10.2527/asasann.2017.519
issn
00021-8812
100218812
21525-3163
315253163
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2017
searchscopeoxford
scopeoxford
lsr4020170801
sort
title519 Effects of different pen lighting Sources on growth, feed efficiency and gene expression in blood and liver of broiler chickens
authorHirtz, L. K ; Rodrigues, R. O ; Leiva, T ; Martins, M. F ; Leigh, M. B ; Firman, J. F ; Schumacher, L. G ; Mcfadden, T. B
creationdate20170800
facets
frbrgroupid8343487042954124545
frbrtype5
newrecords20190113
creationdate2017
topic
0Broiler Performance
1Led Light
2Rna - Sequencing
collectionOxford Journals (Oxford University Press)
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Hirtz, L. K
1Rodrigues, R. O
2Leiva, T
3Martins, M. F
4Leigh, M. B
5Firman, J. F
6Schumacher, L. G
7Mcfadden, T. B
jtitleJournal Of Animal Science
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
aulast
0Hirtz
1Rodrigues
2Leiva
3Martins
4Leigh
5Firman
6Schumacher
7McFadden
aufirst
0L. K.
1R. O.
2T.
3M. F.
4M. B.
5J. F.
6L. G.
7T. B.
au
0Hirtz, L. K.
1Rodrigues, R. O.
2Leiva, T.
3Martins, M. F.
4Leigh, M. B.
5Firman, J. F.
6Schumacher, L. G.
7McFadden, T. B.
atitle519 Effects of different pen lighting Sources on growth, feed efficiency and gene expression in blood and liver of broiler chickens
jtitleJournal of Animal Science
risdate201708
volume95
issuesuppl4
spage253
epage254
pages253-254
issn0021-8812
eissn1525-3163
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstractSeveral reports suggest use of light-emitting diode (LED) lights of various colors may improve efficiency of broiler production. The objective was to compare effects of different light sources on growth and gene expression of broilers. In a subset of a larger experiment, 48 Cobb 500 strain chicks were assigned to one of six lighting treatments with 8 birds per treatment: 1) incandescent, INC); 2) fluorescent (FL); 3) white LED (WL); 4) green LED (GL); 5) blue LED (BL); or 6) green LED on days 1-9 followed by blue LED on days 10-17 (GB). Treatments were administered by using bulbs that met the above specifications. Feed and water were available ad libitum. At termination on day 17, body weight and feed intake were determined and blood and liver samples were obtained for RNA analysis. Blood RNA was used for RNAseq analysis on a subset of samples (n = 4/treatment for WL, GL and BL) to identify target genes for further analysis. Treatment effects were analyzed by orthogonal contrasts and genes were considered differentially expressed (DE) when P ≤ 0.001 and FDR ≤ 0.10. Comparing white and colored LED light (WL vs the average of GL and BL) revealed 63 DE genes. Comparing GL to BL identified 107 DE genes. Integrative analysis using DAVID software indicated: Functions including signal, secreted, blood microparticles, extracellular exosomes and plasma membrane; KEGG pathways, including PPAR signaling; and Tissue specificity, indicating liver. Based on those analyses, we selected 12 DE genes for analysis in liver RNA by qPCR. Target genes included AvBD9, APOA4, CAT, CHAC1, FOXN2, HMGCS1, IL15, SCD, SPINK5, TTR, UBAP2, XPA. Target gene expression was normalized to that of a reference gene, RPL4, and data were log2 transformed before analysis using Proc GLM of SAS. Genes were considered DE at P < 0.05. There was no effect ( P > 0.05) of any lighting treatment on expression of the selected genes of interest in liver. Similar to liver gene expression, light treatments had no effect on broiler growth, feed intake or feed efficiency to day 17 ( P > 0.05). In summary, different light treatments altered gene expression in blood cells but not liver and had no effect on broiler performance. Conflicting gene expression in blood and liver suggests cell type specificity in response to lighting. Similarity of broiler performance under different lighting suggests LED lights of various colors can be used to reducing operating costs without penalizing performance.
pubOxford University Press
doi10.2527/asasann.2017.519
date2017-08