Sistem Otot Dan Kerangka Unggas
Sistem Otot Dan Kerangka Unggas
Sistem Otot Dan Kerangka Unggas
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
189
INTRODUCTION
The chicken is an important non-mammalian vertebrate model; the availability of the
complete genome sequence (Hillier et al., 2004) will likely contribute to fundamental discoveries and scientific progress in medicine, developmental biology and livestock production.
However, even after extensive sequencing efforts, analysis of the gene sequences revealed that
only about 50% of chicken proteins were known to be expressed in vivo; the remaining were
only digitally predicted (Buza et al., 2007).
Macro- and microarrays are well-established technologies used to determine gene
functions through repeated measurements of transcript abundance. High throughput profiling of gene expression provides insights into new gene functions and transcriptional regulation that underlies biological processes (Eisen et al., 1998; Niehrs and Pollet, 1999). Available chicken arrays have been mainly developed based on tissue-specific gene expression,
including an intestine-specific array containing 3072 transcripts (van Hemert et al., 2003), a
macrophage-specific array with 4906 transcripts (Bliss et al., 2005), a lymphocyte-specific
array with 3011 clones (Neiman et al., 2001), an immune response-specific array with 5000
genes (Smith et al., 2006), a heart precursor cell-specific array with 11,000 genes (Afrakhte
and Schultheiss, 2004), and others (Jorge et al., 2007; Cogburn et al., 2007).
We have developed in-house a 9378 chicken skeletal muscle-associated expressed
sequence tag (EST) database, generated from 5-end sequencing of cDNA clones from six
libraries: one from somites (developmental stage HH15; Hamburger and Hamilton, 1951), the
precursors of vertebrate skeletal muscle; one from limb buds in three developmental stages
(HH21, HH24 and HH26); one from whole embryos (HH26) (Jorge et al., 2004), and three
from the pectoralis major muscle at various developmental stages from broiler and layer lines
(pool of HH35 and HH43, for broiler and layer lines, and pool of one and 21 days post-hatch,
just for a broiler line). All ESTs were deposited at the dbEST at GenBank (http://www.ncbi/
nlm.nih.gov/dbEST) as CD760792 to CD765430 and CO502869 to CO507803. Our objecGenetics and Molecular Research 9 (1): 188-207 (2010)
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
190
tive was to construct an exclusive chicken-expressed sequence database that represents the
complete myogenic program, from cell determination to differentiation, considering all cell
populations in chicken skeletal-muscle samples.
However, only a small number of these ESTs were sufficiently well characterized regarding their cellular functions based on annotation. For the large majority of the transcripts,
their functions remained either completely unknown or only partially understood. Therefore,
we developed approximately 4500 chicken skeletal muscle-associated macroarray based on
our myogenic-specific EST database to use the expression profile to functionally characterize
unknown or uncharacterized chicken transcripts.
We used this macroarray platform to generate an expression dataset of approximately
4500 chicken genes across five chicken adult tissues (skeletal muscle, heart, liver, brain, and
skin). Tissue screening was first used because evidence of a particular tissue-characteristic
expression can provide an indication that the transcript is likely to be functionally significant
(Bono et al., 2003; Zhang et al., 2004). Gene expression profile data across tissues were reliable and consistent with previous information about gene expression and tissue function. Tissue profiling analysis allowed us to suggest novel functions to known and unknown genes; this
information will be useful to direct experimental characterization of chicken genes.
Plasmidial probes
Plasmidial probes were used to determine the amount of DNA in the bacterial clones
spotted onto the macroarray membranes. Oligos were obtained to recognize a specific region of
the Ampicillin gene (5-TAGACTGGATGGAGGCGGATAA-3 and 3-CGCCTATTTCAAC
GTCCTGGTG-5) present in the pSPORT1 sequence of every clone. They were labeled using the Klenow large fragment of DNA polymerase I (Invitrogen Co., Carlsbad, CA, USA) to
incorporate [-33P]-dCTP in the sequence of complementary oligos, using the overgo method
(Ross et al., 1999). Probes were purified using G-50 columns (GE Healthcare, Piscataway, NJ,
USA), following manufacturer instructions, and immediately used to hybridize the macroarray platforms.
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
191
(Invitrogen) to isolate total RNA. Poly(A)+ RNA was purified using the Oligotex kit (Quiagen,
Hilden, Germany), following manufacturer directions.
Statistical analysis
A two-step general linear model, described by Wolfinger et al. (2001), was used to
normalize the macroarray data and to detect differentially expressed genes. In the first step,
expression data were normalized using the following model: yijklm = + Gi + Tj + Mk + Q(k)l +
ijklm, where yijklm is the log2 value of the intensity of the hybridization sign (gene expression);
is a constant associated to each observation; Gi is the effect of gene i (i = 1,,4,520); Tj is the
effect of treatment j (j = 1,,5); Mk is the random effect of membrane k (k = 1,,6); Q(k)l is
the random effect of quadrant within each membrane (l = 1,,384), included to adjust for the
spatial effect on the membrane, and ijklm is the random error associated with each observation.
This model assumes Mk, Q(k)l and ijklm are idd
,
,
respectively, with
all of them independent of each other.
In the second step, the residuals from this model were denoted rijkl , computed by subtracting the fitted values for the effects and the residuals from the first step from the yijklm values.
This defined the following gene-specific model: rijkl = Gi + (GT)ij + (GM)ik + eijkl , where rijkl is the
residual of the normalization model; Gi is the average effect of gene i; (GT)ij is the effect of treatment j on gene i; (GM)ik is the effect of membrane k on gene i, and eijkl stands for the random error associated with each observation. This model considers that (GM)ik and eijkl are idd
and
, respectively, with all of them independent of each other. Data were analyzed using
PROC MIXED in SAS (SAS/STAT software version 9, SAS Institute) and the significance of the
differences between expressed sequences was assessed by the t-test (P < 0.05).
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
192
three developmental stages (HH21, HH24 and HH26); one from whole embryos (HH26),
and three from pectoralis major muscle in various developmental stages for broiler and layer
lines (Alves HJ, unpublished results). This EST collection was originally annotated using the
identification from the highest hit score using BLAST (BLASTN and BLASTX against the
GenBank chicken genome, and non-redundant and EST databases, respectively). This database was deposited in the dbEST division of GenBank as CD760792 to CD765430 (Jorge et
al., 2004) and CO502869 to CO507803. Clustering and assembling of the EST collection was
conducted using CAP3 (Huang and Madan, 1999), resulting in 4269 unique sequences. One
representative clone from each contig and all singlets were selected to be spotted onto the
nylon membrane platforms. Selection of a representative clone from each contig was based
on a search for the longest EST read. As the cDNAs were synthesized from the 3 poly(A) tail
up to an average insert size of around 1 kb; possibly the longest sequence also had the longest
part of the coding sequences. During clone selection, whether two or more unique sequences
were from the same mRNA was not considered. In addition, clones representing genes of
-actin and GAPDH, plus pSPORT1 empty vector (Invitrogen) were selected to fill 251 random spaces in the array, to be used as positive and negative controls, respectively. Therefore,
selection resulted in a total set of 4520 clones. The set was re-arrayed into twelve 384-well
plates and robotically spotted in duplicate onto the nylon filter (9040 spots on the membrane).
Table 1. Selection of transcripts for the macroarray construction.
Library
Tissue
Developmental stage HH
SM1
Somites associated with neural tube/notochord
HH15
EM1
Whole embryo
HH25
LB1
Limb bud
HH21, HH24 and HH25
CB1
Breast muscle
HH35 and HH43, broiler
EB1
Breast muscle
HH35 and HH43, layer
EB2
Breast muscle
1 and 21 days old, broiler
Control
Total
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
193
from 3529 to 3765 for skin and muscle, respectively (Table 2). The expression database was
constructed based on this filtered set of data of detectable signals.
Table 2. Numbers of spot signals obtained after hybridization assays.
Tissue
3,765
3,691
3,728
3,645
3,529
209
283
246
329
445
Skeletal muscle
Brain
Liver
Heart
Skin
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
194
Clone
Accession number
Chromosome
LOC
Blast hit
Troponin I type 2
Similar to chromosome 2 ORF 25
Centromere protein H
Ubiquitin related modifier 1
Repulsive guidance molecule A
DEAD (Asp-Glu-Ala-Asp) box
polypeptide 18
Grainyhead-like 3
Smooth muscle protein phosphatase
type 1-binding subunit
Zinc finger, DHHC-type
containing 23
RNA binding motif protein 5
Transmembrane protein 180
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
195
DHHC-type containing 23 (ZDHHC23), for example, codes for a membrane protein containing
a palmitoyl transferase domain, which supposedly promotes protein palmitoylation, a crucial
lipid modification in protein trafficking and function (Fukata et al., 2006). Substrates for palmitoylation include H-Ras, a GTP binding protein that regulates cell growth and differentiation
(Fukata et al., 2006). A ZnFDHHC motif was found with an expression pattern similar to MyoD
(muscle determination transcription factor) in the somitic mesorderm in Danio rerio (Nagaya et
al., 2002). The expression pattern of this known transcript in chicken skeletal-muscle suggests
a new uninvestigated biological function for DHHC motif during myogenesis.
A member of the repulsive guidance molecule (RGM) family (member A; RGM-A)
was also identified as skeletal muscle-specific transcript. RGM-A was firstly described as
responsible for providing guidance cues for axons of retinal neurons (Monnier et al., 2002).
Other RGM-A biological functions have been recently investigated, including neural tube
closure and inhibition of axon growth after injury in the adult central nervous system (Matsunaga and Chdotal, 2004; Niederkofler et al., 2004; Mawdsley et al., 2004; Hata et al., 2006).
RGM-C (also known as hemochromatosis type 2, Hfe2) is the member of the RGM family
with biological function described in skeletal muscle, associated with iron homeostasis; it is
responsible for the hemachromatosis type 2 disease in humans (Papanikolaou et al., 2004).
Curiously, neither genomic nor EST sequences were found for the chicken RGM-C in public
databases. Based on the expression profiles described here, we hypothesize a novel biological
function for RGM-A in chicken skeletal muscle. Induction of transcripts associated with neuronal activity during skeletal muscle development has been described (Szustakowski et al.,
2006) and mouse RGM-C was induced in muscle cell survival and differentiation after growth
factor treatment, based on microarray analysis (Kuninger et al., 2004).
Clustering analysis
Clustering analysis is a computational method, which calculates similarities of items
in large databases to recall patterns and higher order structure. All 3974 valid expression data
were clustered using GeneSpring GX (Agilent Technologies), first to obtain the expression
profile of all transcripts in all tissues (skeletal muscle, heart, liver, brain, and skin), and second,
to identify transcripts that are highly expressed in each tissue, in an attempt to reveal uncharacterized transcripts with similar expression patterns.
Hierarchical clustering
The entire valid expression database was subjected to hierarchical clustering (Eisen et
al., 1998), where both transcripts and tissues were clustered. The resulting dendrogram (Figure
1) revealed that brain and skin were grouped together (bootstrap of P = 100%), and to a lesser
degree with heart (P = 56%; Figure 1A). Skeletal muscle and liver were the other tissues
grouped (bootstrap of P = 68%). Samples derived from similar embryonic germ layers (ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm) are expected to show similar gene expression patterns. Brain
and skin are both ectoderm derivatives and were tightly clustered in our analysis. However,
mesoderm-derived tissues (skeletal muscle and heart) and endoderm (liver) did not show
expression consistent with this hypothesis. Inconsistent dendrograms generated from tissue profiling and embryonic origin were previously observed in Xenopus laevis (Baldessari et al., 2005).
Genetics and Molecular Research 9 (1): 188-207 (2010)
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
196
Figure 1. Dendrograms generated from hierarchical clustering analysis. In A the valid expression database was
subject to hierarchical clustering, where both transcripts and tissues were clustered, and in B, transcripts grouped
into the embryonic development GO category (1342) were subject to hierarchical clustering. Only in B, samples
derived from similar embryonic germ layers showed similar gene expression patterns. BR = Brain; SK = Skin;
HT = Heart; LV = Liver; SM = Skeletal muscle.
Interestingly, when clustering only 1318 transcripts from the embryonic development
GO category, a dendrogram consistent with embryonic germ layers origin was obtained (Figure
1B): brain and skin were tightly clustered together (bootstrap values of 100%); heart and
skeletal muscle formed another robust group, both separated from liver (Figure 1B). The
differences observed in the hierarchical clustering between these two sets of genes might have
occurred because genes spotted onto the array were mainly identified in samples of skeletal
muscle tissue, which is composed of a mixture of tissues (including conjunctive tissue and vasGenetics and Molecular Research 9 (1): 188-207 (2010)
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
197
cular and nervous systems), all of them contributing to the muscle expression profile. Genes
selected from the embryonic development GO category might have more specialized functions; for this reason, they were grouped properly following germ layer derivatives.
In order to further characterize tissue expression profiles, highly expressed transcripts
(HET) characteristic of each tissue were identified. These genes were recognized by summarizing the expression data for each tissue in a box plot and selecting genes with higher
than the upper quartile range as the highly expressed genes (HET). With this strategy, the
number of HET for each tissue were: 851 transcripts from muscle; 880 from heart; 901
from liver; 896 from brain, and 216 from skin. Comparison among the HET across tissues allowed identifying the most abundant transcripts characteristic of each tissue. No HET
were expressed in more than two tissues. There were 197 muscle HET; 406 heart HET; 474
liver HET; 427 brain HET (Figure 2). All skin HET were also muscle HET (Figure 2),
probably indicating that there was cross-contamination between muscle and skin samples.
All HET characteristic of each tissue were compared against the chicken genome database from NCBI to check the consistency of our expression results. Skeletal muscle HETs
showed enrichment for i) muscle contraction and cytoskeletal organization proteins, such as
tropomyosin 3 (TPM3), tubulin beta 2A (TUBB), tubulin gamma 1 (TUBG1), myosin heavy
chain 8 (MYH8), coronin (actin-binding protein 1C, CORO1C), troponin T type 3 (TNNT3);
actinin alpha 2 (ACTN1); tubulin tyrosine ligase-like family, member 12 (TTLL12), tubulin
polymerization promoting protein (LOC420800), actin alpha 1 (LOC421534), actin-filamentassociated protein (AFAP1), tropomodulin 1 (TMOD1); Smoothelin-like protein (actin bindGenetics and Molecular Research 9 (1): 188-207 (2010)
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
198
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
199
Table 4. Hypothetical transcripts found to be co-expressed among highly expressed transcripts (HETs).
Clone name
Accession #
LOC
Chromosome
Description
NADB_Rossmann;
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
200
Accession #
LOC
Chromosome
GGEZCB1021A08
CO503167
Un
Description
hypothetical protein
[Monodelphis domestica]
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
201
Table 4. Continued.
Clone name
Accession #
LOC
Chromosome
Description
GGEZCB1005E03
CO503121
LOC771404
Un
hypothetical protein LOC771404
[G. gallus]
GGEZEB2019F01
CO507251
LOC776536
Un
LOC776536 hypothetical protein
LOC776536 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1014G07
CO505557
LOC427196
Z
LOC427196 similar to MGC83563
protein [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1019C05
CO506042
Gga.7682
hypothetical protein G. gallus
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
202
Accession #
LOC
Chromosome
Description
GGEZEM1003A02
CD763200
LOC429154
9
LOC429154 hypothetical
LOC429154 [G. gallus]
GGEZLB1010A01
CD764119
LOC424773
9
LOC424773 similar to
KIAA0332 [G. gallus]
GGEZSM1015G03 CD761866 LOC416056
12
LOC416056 hypothetical
LOC416056 [G. gallus]
GGEZSM1005E10
CD761082
KIAA0430
14
KIAA0430 KIAA0430 [G. gallus]
GGEZLB1010C03
CD764143
LOC771533
18
similar to chromosome 17
open reading frame 26
GGEZSM1019A03
CD761969
LOC422071
18
LOC422071 hypothetical gene
supported by CR407540 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1016D04
CO505309
LOC419279
20
C20orf160 chromosome 20 open
reading frame 160 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1020E05
CO505678
LOC419329
20
C20orf43 chromosome 20 open
reading frame 43 [G. gallus]
GGEZEM1004H04
CD763342
LOC771089
20
LOC771089 hypothetical protein
LOC771089 [G. gallus]
GGEZSM1011B08
CD761482
LOC419203
20
C20orf111 chromosome 20 open
reading frame 111 [G. gallus]
GGEZSM1011F04
CD761522
Gga.41998
20
hypothetical protein
GGEZSM1029A08
CD762830
C1orf151
21
chromosome 1 open reading
frame 151 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB2012A04
CO507433
LOC426357
25
LOC426357 hypothetical
LOC426357 [G. gallus]
GGEZSM1007B10
CD761203
LOC420161
28
C19orf10 chromosome 19 open
reading frame 10 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB2003A03
CO507127
Gga.17527
Un
G. gallus finished cDNA,
clone ChEST992e8
GGEZSM1027A11
CD762666
Gga.34499
Un
G. gallus finished cDNA,
clone ChEST293f16
GGEZLB1022A05
CD764921
Gga.36089
Z
G. gallus finished cDNA,
clone ChEST128e22
GGEZSM1027G05
CD762728
LOC768733
Z
LOC768733 hypothetical protein
LOC768733 [G. gallus]
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
203
Table 4. Continued.
Clone name
Accession #
LOC
Chromosome
Description
GGEZSM1020H02
CD762121
LOC770530
1
C7orf55 chromosome 7 open
reading frame 55 [G. gallus]
GGEZSM1022F02
CD762271
LOC418472
1
LOC418472 hypothetical
LOC418472 [G. gallus]
GGEZCB1019B05
CO504371
LOC420370
2
similar to KIAA1285 protein
[G. gallus]
GGEZEB1014D05
CO505528
LOC420252
2
LOC420252 similar to KIAA0896
protein [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1023A12
CO505441
LOC420961
2
C9orf4 chromosome 9 open
reading frame 4 [G. gallus]
GGEZLB1010A05
CD764123
LOC768667
2
LOC768667 hypothetical protein
LOC768667 [G. gallus]
GGEZLB1022A02 CD764919
LOC420907
2
KIAA1468 KIAA1468 [G. gallus]
GGEZSM1022D01
CD762248
LOC420983
2
C9orf6 chromosome 9 open
reading frame 6 [G. gallus]
GGEZSM1025B02
CD762487
LOC420764
2
C7orf36 chromosome 7 open
reading frame 36 [G. gallus]
GGEZLB1016E06
CD764497
LOC422195
4
CXorf34 chromosome X open
reading frame 34 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1001G06
CO506289
LOC423293
5
C15orf41 chromosome 15 open
reading frame 41 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB2015A08
CO506905
LOC768377
5
LOC768377 hypothetical protein
LOC768377 [G. gallus]
GGEZEM1001A09
CD763087
LOC426752
5
LOC426752 hypothetical
LOC426752 [G. gallus]
GGEZLB1010F11
CD764180
LOC423494
5
LOC423494 hypothetical
LOC423494 [G. gallus]
GGEZSM1009E10
CD761395
LOC423192
5
KIAA0652 KIAA0652 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1034F09
CO505997
LOC423782
6
C10orf72 chromosome 10 open
reading frame 72 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1011E08
CO505905
LOC424385
8
LOC424385 similar to chromosome
1 open reading frame 9 [G. gallus]
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
204
Accession #
LOC
Chromosome
Description
GGEZSM1015G09
CD761869
LOC424580
8
C1orf164 chromosome 1 open
reading frame 164 [G. gallus]
GGEZSM1012G03
CD761612
LOC415704
11
LOC415704 similar to
KIAA0091 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB2015G12
CO506967
LOC417886
12
C12orf29 chromosome 12 open
reading frame 29 [G. gallus]
GGEZCB1016F10
CO504125
LOC416357
13
hypothetical LOC416357 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB2005G05
CO507414
LOC769251
14
LOC769251 hypothetical protein
LOC769251 [G. gallus]
GGEZSM1013F09
CD761689
LOC425771
16
LOC425771 hypothetical
LOC425771 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1020H07
CO505714
C9orf58
17
C9orf58 chromosome 9 open
reading frame 58 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1022C04
CO506563
LOC770371
18
LOC770371 hypothetical protein
LOC770371 [G. gallus]
GGEZEM1001A12
CD763088
LOC769908
18
LOC769908 hypothetical protein
LOC769908 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1023B09
CO505446
LOC419221
20
C20orf177 chromosome 20 open
reading frame 177 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB2003E11
CO507177
LOC420073
28
LOC420073 similar to
R31449_3 [G. gallus]
GGEZLB1003E10
CD763613
LOC420101
28
C19orf6 chromosome 19 open
reading frame 6 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1005H06
CO505429
LOC425086
Un
LOC425086 hypothetical
LOC425086 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB1017F10
CO506340
LOC772194
Un
C1orf78 chromosome 1 open
reading frame 78 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB2019F11
CO507258
LOC777501
Un
LOC777501 hypothetical protein
LOC777501 [G. gallus]
GGEZLB1002D11
CD763513
LOC771478
Un
LOC771478 hypothetical protein
LOC771478 [G. gallus]
GGEZLB1009E04
CD764080
LOC776802
Un
LOC776802 hypothetical protein
LOC776802 [G. gallus]
GGEZLB1010D05
CD764156
Gga.12325
Un
hypothetical protein
GGEZEB1026D06
CO505224
3.1
Z
C5orf13 chromosome 5 open
reading frame 13 [G. gallus]
GGEZEB2012H08
CO507509
LOC426891
Z
C18orf10 chromosome 18 open
reading frame 10 [G. gallus]
GGEZSM1027A10
CD762665
LOC427408
Z
KIAA1045 KIAA1045 [G. gallus]
Chromosome Un = unknown.
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
205
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
206
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research supported by Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientfico e Tecnolgico (CNPq) and Fundao de Amparo Pesquisa do Estado de So Paulo (FAPESP). L.L.
Coutinho is the recipient of a scholarship from CNPq.
REFERENCES
Adams MD, Kelley JM, Gocayne JD, Dubnick M, et al. (1991). Complementary DNA sequencing: expressed sequence
tags and human genome project. Science 252: 1651-1656.
Afrakhte M and Schultheiss TM (2004). Construction and analysis of a subtracted library and microarray of cDNAs
expressed specifically in chicken heart progenitor cells. Dev. Dyn. 230: 290-298.
Baldessari D, Shin Y, Krebs O, Knig R, et al. (2005). Global gene expression profiling and cluster analysis in Xenopus
laevis. Mech. Dev. 122: 441-475.
Bliss TW, Dohms JE, Emara MG and Keeler CL Jr (2005). Gene expression profiling of avian macrophage activation. Vet.
Immunol. Immunopathol. 105: 289-299.
Bono H, Yagi K, Kasukawa T, Nikaido I, et al. (2003). Systematic expression profiling of the mouse transcriptome using
RIKEN cDNA microarrays. Genome Res. 13: 1318-1323.
Buza TJ, McCarthy FM and Burgess SC (2007). Experimental-confirmation and functional-annotation of predicted
proteins in the chicken genome. BMC Genomics 8: 425.
Cogburn LA, Porter TE, Duclos MJ, Simon J, et al. (2007). Functional genomics of the chicken - a model organism. Poult.
Sci. 86: 2059-2094.
Eisen MB, Spellman PT, Brown PO and Botstein D (1998). Cluster analysis and display of genome-wide expression
patterns. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95: 14863-14868.
Fukata Y, Iwanaga T and Fukata M (2006). Systematic screening for palmitoyl transferase activity of the DHHC protein
family in mammalian cells. Methods 40: 177-182.
Galperin MY and Koonin EV (2004). Conserved hypothetical proteins: prioritization of targets for experimental study.
Nucleic Acids Res. 32: 5452-5463.
Gollery M, Harper J, Cushman J, Mittler T, et al. (2006). What makes species unique? The contribution of proteins with
obscure features. Genome Biol. 7: R57.
Gollery M, Harper J, Cushman J, Mittler T, et al. (2007). POFs: what we dont know can hurt us. Trends Plant Sci. 12:
492-496.
Graveley BR (2001). Alternative splicing: increasing diversity in the proteomic world. Trends Genet. 17: 100-107.
Hamburger V and Hamilton HL (1951). A series of normal stages in the development of the chick embryo. J. Morphol.
88: 49-92.
Hata K, Fujitani M, Yasuda Y, Doya H, et al. (2006). RGMa inhibition promotes axonal growth and recovery after spinal
cord injury. J. Cell Biol. 173: 47-58.
Hillier LW, Miller W, Birney E and Warren W, et al. (2004). Sequence and comparative analysis of the chicken genome
provide unique perspectives on vertebrate evolution. Nature 432: 695-716.
Huang X and Madan A (1999). CAP3: A DNA sequence assembly program. Genome Res. 9: 868-877.
Jorge EC, Monteiro-Vitorelo CB, Alves HJ and Silva CS, et al. (2004). EST analysis of mRNA expressed during
embryogenesis in Gallus gallus. Int. J. Dev. Biol. 48: 333-337.
Jorge EC, Figueira A, Ledur MC and Moura ASAMT, et al. (2007). Contributions and perspectives of chicken genomics
in Brazil: from biological model to export commodity. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 63: 597-610.
Kuninger D, Kuzmickas R, Peng B, Pintar JE, et al. (2004). Gene discovery by microarray: identification of novel genes
induced during growth factor-mediated muscle cell survival and differentiation. Genomics 84: 876-889.
Kusano S and Raab-Traub N (2002). I-mfa domain proteins interact with Axin and affect its regulation of the Wnt and
c-Jun N-terminal kinase signaling pathways. Mol. Cell Biol. 22: 6393-6405.
Matsunaga E and Chdotal A (2004). Repulsive guidance molecule/neogenin: a novel ligand-receptor system playing
multiple roles in neural development. Dev. Growth Differ. 46: 481-486.
Mawdsley DJ, Cooper HM, Hogan BM, Cody SH, et al. (2004). The Netrin receptor Neogenin is required for neural tube
formation and somitogenesis in zebrafish. Dev. Biol. 269: 302-315.
Monnier PP, Sierra A, Macchi P, Deitinghoff L, et al. (2002). RGM is a repulsive guidance molecule for retinal axons.
Nature 419: 392-395.
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br
207
Nagaya M, Inohaya K, Imai Y and Kudo A (2002). Expression of zisp, a DHHC zinc finger gene, in somites and lens
during zebrafish embryogenesis. Mech. Dev. 119 (Suppl 1): S311-S314.
Neiman PE, Ruddell A, Jasoni C, Loring G, et al. (2001). Analysis of gene expression during myc oncogene-induced
lymphomagenesis in the bursa of Fabricius. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 6378-6383.
Niederkofler V, Salie R, Sigrist M and Arber S (2004). Repulsive guidance molecule (RGM) gene function is required for
neural tube closure but not retinal topography in the mouse visual system. J. Neurosci. 24: 808-818.
Niehrs C and Pollet N (1999). Synexpression groups in eukaryotes. Nature 402: 483-487.
Papanikolaou G, Samuels ME, Ludwig EH, MacDonald ML, et al. (2004). Mutations in HFE2 cause iron overload in
chromosome 1q-linked juvenile hemochromatosis. Nat. Genet. 36: 77-82.
Postigo AA and Dean DC (1999). Independent repressor domains in ZEB regulate muscle and T-cell differentiation. Mol.
Cell Biol. 19: 7961-7971.
Ross M, Labrie T, McPherson S and Stanton VP (1999). Screening large-insert libraries by hybridization. Curr. Protoc.
Hum. Genet. 5.6.1-5.6.32. DOI: 10.1002/0471142905.hg0506s21.
Sambrook J, Fritsch EF and Maniatis T (1989). Molecular Cloning: a Laboratory Manual. 2nd edn. Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory Press, Plainview.
Scott SV, Nice DC III, Nau JJ, Weisman LS, et al. (2000). Apg13p and Vac8p are part of a complex of phosphoproteins
that are required for cytoplasm to vacuole targeting. J. Biol. Chem. 275: 25840-25849.
Smith J, Speed D, Hocking PM, Talbot RT, et al. (2006). Development of a chicken 5K microarray targeted towards
immune function. BMC Genomics 7: 49.
Soares MB, Bonaldo MF, Jelene P, Su L, et al. (1994). Construction and characterization of a normalized cDNA library.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 9228-9232.
Szustakowski JD, Lee JH, Marrese CA, Kosinski PA, et al. (2006). Identification of novel pathway regulation during
myogenic differentiation. Genomics 87: 129-138.
van Hemert S, Ebbelaar BH, Smits MA and Rebel JM (2003). Generation of EST and microarray resources for functional
genomic studies on chicken intestinal health. Anim. Biotechnol. 14: 133-143.
Wolfinger RD, Gibson G, Wolfinger ED, Bennett L, et al. (2001). Assessing gene significance from cDNA microarray
expression data via mixed models. J. Comput. Biol. 8: 625-637.
Woods S, Farrall A, Procko C and Whitelaw ML (2008). The bHLH/Per-Arnt-Sim transcription factor SIM2 regulates
muscle transcript myomesin2 via a novel, non-canonical E-box sequence. Nucleic Acids Res. 36: 3716-3727.
Zhang W, Morris QD, Chang R, Shai O, et al. (2004). The functional landscape of mouse gene expression. J. Biol. 3: 21.
FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br