Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:28:45.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Pectoral angle: a glance at a traditional phenotypic trait in chickens from a new perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2023

Anatoly B. Vakhrameev
Affiliation:
Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the L. K. Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry, Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Russia
Valeriy G. Narushin
Affiliation:
Research Institute for Environment Treatment, Zaporozhye, Ukraine Vita-Market Ltd, Zaporozhye, Ukraine
Tatyana A. Larkina
Affiliation:
Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the L. K. Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry, Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Russia
Olga Y. Barkova
Affiliation:
Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the L. K. Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry, Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Russia
Grigoriy K. Peglivanyan
Affiliation:
Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the L. K. Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry, Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Russia
Artem P. Dysin
Affiliation:
Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the L. K. Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry, Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Russia
Natalia V. Dementieva*
Affiliation:
Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the L. K. Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry, Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Russia
Yuri S. Shcherbakov
Affiliation:
Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the L. K. Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry, Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Russia
Marina V. Pozovnikova
Affiliation:
Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the L. K. Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry, Pushkin, St. Petersburg, Russia
Darren K. Griffin*
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
Michael N. Romanov*
Affiliation:
School of Biosciences, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK L. K. Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry, Dubrovitsy, Podolsk, Moscow Oblast, Russia
*
Corresponding author: Natalia V. Dementieva; Email: [email protected]; Darren K. Griffin; Email: [email protected]; Michael N. Romanov; Email: [email protected]
Corresponding author: Natalia V. Dementieva; Email: [email protected]; Darren K. Griffin; Email: [email protected]; Michael N. Romanov; Email: [email protected]
Corresponding author: Natalia V. Dementieva; Email: [email protected]; Darren K. Griffin; Email: [email protected]; Michael N. Romanov; Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In meat-type poultry breeding, pectoral angle (PA) is a conventional anatomical indicator for changes in body conformation and meat traits; its correlation to egg performance is however deemed controversial. In this context, we revisited, assessed and put forward evidence for the usefulness of this classic phenotypic variable and its specific integrative index of pectoral angle-to-body weight ratio (PA/BW). Specifically, we identified respective correlations and used them for distinguishing the major categories (production types) of diverse chicken breeds under the traditional classification model (TCM) and genotypic clustering models of the global chicken gene pool subdivision. Also, the usefulness of the supplementary integrative egg mass yield index (EMY) for this objective was demonstrated. Because of estimating the total mass of eggs laid (i.e. egg number times egg weight), EMY can serve as an indicator of egg production. Direct approximation of EMY values by PA and BW values did not lead to significant correlation dependences between these indicators in each of the four breed utility types according to TCM. However, using the ratio of PA to BW, instead of PA and BW alone, resulted in significant correlation of EMY with PA/BW, allowing for distinction between egg-type and non-productive breeds. The validity of the proposed correlation-based models was supported by PCA and Neighbor Joining clustering analyses. Collectively, we suggested that PA can be a potentially correlated trait for selecting hens and roosters in breeding flocks to boost egg yield. These results can also be applied to chicken breeding as well as conservation- and phenome-related research.

Type
Animal Research Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Introduction

In chickens (Gallus gallus (L.)), breast angle, or pectoral angle (PA), is one of the most commonly scored anatomical and conformational traits used in the selection of meat-type breeds (MTB; e.g. Siegel, Reference Siegel1962a, Reference Siegel1962b, Reference Siegel1963; Siegel and Siegel, Reference Siegel and Siegel1963; Mishra and Singh, Reference Mishra and Singh2011; Softić et al., Reference Softić, Kavazović, Gagić, Katica, Šakić and Varatanović2011; Das et al., Reference Das, Kumar, Rahim, Kokate and Mishra2016; Pandey et al., Reference Pandey, Behura, Samal, Pati and Nayak2018). With defining it as the angle that the height of the keel makes to the chest shape, its investigation has been carried out, as a rule, within single breeds. Although a few dual purpose (DPB; those bred for more than one definite selected performance trait) and native breeds (e.g. Chatterjee et al., Reference Chatterjee, Sharma, Reddy, Niranjan and Reddy2007; Das et al., Reference Das, Kumar, Rahim, Kokatate and Mishra2014, Reference Das, Kumar, Rahim, Kokate and Mishra2015a, Reference Das, Kumar and Rahim2015b, Reference Das, Mishra, Kumar, Rahim and Kokate2017) have been looked at, features of PA variability across a wide range of breeds developed by divergently oriented selection and for different purpose of use have not been well considered.

Based on studying lines of New Hampshire (of DPB) fryers, Abplanalp et al. (Reference Abplanalp, Asmundson and Lerner1960) hypothesized that mass selection for breast width would result in a decrease in egg number (EN), while keeping individuals with genotypes of relatively low fitness. Their report, however, offered no concrete evidence to support this assumption. Comparing two lines of White Plymouth Rocks mass selected for PA in divergent directions, no concurrent variations in egg production were discovered (Siegel, Reference Siegel1963), suggesting further investigation of any correlation between PA and egg performance was required. In the following decades, PA, within a set of many other performance and phenotypic characteristics, was often included in breeding and research programmes for meat and dual purpose poultry (e.g. Miguel et al., Reference Miguel, Ciria, Asenjo and Calvo2008; Mueller et al., Reference Mueller, Kreuzer, Siegrist, Mannale, Messikommer and Gangnat2018), as well as in molecular studies of expectable associations of genes (Lei et al., Reference Lei, Peng, Zhou, Luo, Nie and Zhang2008; Han et al., Reference Han, Li, Li, Li, Lan, Sun, Kang and Chen2011; Cao et al., Reference Cao, Dong, Mao, Xu and Yin2019) and miRNAs (Li et al., Reference Li, Wang, Yan, Liu, Jiang, Han, Li, Li, Tian, Kang and Sun2015a, Reference Li, Jiang, Wang, Liu, Kang, Jiang, Li and Sun2015b) with growth and carcass traits.

Due to investigations by Vakhrameev and Makarova (Reference Vakhrameev and Makarova2021) and Vakhrameev et al. (Reference Vakhrameev, Narushin, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Dysin, Dementieva, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Bondarenko, Griffin and Romanov2022), PA has just recently come back under serious observation and examination as a single phenotypic variable. As described in more detail by Vakhrameev et al. (Reference Vakhrameev, Narushin, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Dysin, Dementieva, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Bondarenko, Griffin and Romanov2022), PA is considered a very important anatomical phenotypic indicator in the poultry industry. Its extreme values, from an obtuse angle, almost 180°, in final broiler crosses to an ultra-sharp one, i.e., 15–20°, are inherent in sick birds with an eloquent characteristic of ‘rusks’ or ‘dried up’ birds. In addition, PA characterizes the fullness of the thoracic region with muscles. The muscularity of the thoracic region of a bird can serve as a reliable indicator of the development of general muscles. A bird with well-developed muscles is active and strong, which allows it to reliably get along in a flock and confidently receive food, drink and rest. All this contributes to the formation of an intensive metabolism in the bird's body for the formation of high egg productivity. Thus, one can assume that there should be a biological relationship between PA and egg production rate. Therefore, studying a quantitative significance of this relationship is relevant to the poultry breeding progress and deserves a further research.

In our previous work (Vakhrameev et al., Reference Vakhrameev, Narushin, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Dysin, Dementieva, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Bondarenko, Griffin and Romanov2022), we suggested that PA, and especially its specific integrative index, i.e. the angle-to-body weight ratio (PA/BW), has a positive relationship with egg productivity, specifically, EN produced during the period of egg laying in egg-type breeds (ETB). At the same time, this correlation decreased and became negative as the selection direction of flocks moved away from the egg type. In those analytical studies, we relied on data from Larkina et al. (Reference Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Mitrofanova, Dementieva, Stanishevskaya, Vakhrameev, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Brazhnik, Griffin and Romanov2021a), who proposed and explored the following four models of the evolutionarily determined subdivision of the global chicken gene pool: traditional classification model (TCM), phenotypic clustering model (PCM) and genotypic clustering models 1 and 2 (GCM1, GCM2). In particular, within TCM, Larkina et al. (Reference Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Mitrofanova, Dementieva, Stanishevskaya, Vakhrameev, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Brazhnik, Griffin and Romanov2021a) described five traditionally accepted classes of chicken breeds ‘in terms of productivity and purpose of use, i.e., egg-type breeds (ETBs), meat-type breeds (MTBs), dual purpose breeds (DPBs), game breeds (GBs), and fancy breeds (FBs; also, ornamental or “decorative” breeds)’. While ETB and MTB are those developed for egg or meat production, egg-meat (EMB) and meat-egg (MEB) breeds, being transitional between ETB and MTB, are two kinds of DPB. They can be classified as either MEB (if meat productivity qualities are the primary goals of selection; Bratishko et al., Reference Bratishko, Gaviley, Pritulenko and Tereshchenko2012; Bondarenko and Khvostyk, Reference Bondarenko and Khvostyk2020) or EMB (if egg performance features are the primary targets of selection), despite the fact that their body weight and appearance hardly differ in any significant way (e.g. Khvostyk et al., Reference Khvostyk, Tereshchenko, Zakharchenko and Bondarenko2017; Kulibaba et al., Reference Kulibaba, Liashenko and Yurko2018 Mueller et al., Reference Mueller, Kreuzer, Siegrist, Mannale, Messikommer and Gangnat2018; Gal'pern et al., Reference Gal'pern, Perinek and Fedorova2020; Larkina et al., Reference Larkina, Romanov, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Mitrofanova, Dementieva, Stanishevskaya, Vakhrameev, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova and Griffin2021b).

Clustering patterns of breeds within three other models (PCM, GCM1 and GCM2) showed both similarities and dissimilarities as compared to TCM (Larkina et al., Reference Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Mitrofanova, Dementieva, Stanishevskaya, Vakhrameev, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Brazhnik, Griffin and Romanov2021a). Of the four above models, Vakhrameev et al. (Reference Vakhrameev, Narushin, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Dysin, Dementieva, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Bondarenko, Griffin and Romanov2022) chose the PCM variant, which, in our opinion, was optimal for such a subdivision of utility types among various chicken breeds. This was because PCM took into account a wide range of phenotypic (productive) traits: EN, egg weight (EW), BW and 13 morphometric parameters (including PA).

However, given the fact that it was not possible to answer unequivocally whether the assignment of breeds to a specific breed type within each model was carried out correctly (Larkina et al., Reference Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Mitrofanova, Dementieva, Stanishevskaya, Vakhrameev, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Brazhnik, Griffin and Romanov2021a), one can guess that previous results on the prospective use of PA and PA/BW (Vakhrameev et al., Reference Vakhrameev, Narushin, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Dysin, Dementieva, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Bondarenko, Griffin and Romanov2022) were only adequate for PCM. In this regard, we aimed here to evaluating the potential for using the PA trait and/or its specific integrative PA/BW index for the other subdivision models of the world chicken gene pool as reported by Larkina et al. (Reference Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Mitrofanova, Dementieva, Stanishevskaya, Vakhrameev, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Brazhnik, Griffin and Romanov2021a). Since one of the aforementioned models, GCM2, did not allow us to assess the degree of belonging to ETB in the studied breed sampling (Larkina et al., Reference Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Mitrofanova, Dementieva, Stanishevskaya, Vakhrameev, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Brazhnik, Griffin and Romanov2021a), in the present investigation, we focused on TCM as outlined below and additionally tested GCM1 (see Supplementary Material S1 for further details).

Thus, the purpose of this study was to revisit the PA trait and develop alternative, mathematically justified prerequisites that can be used as integrative indices for breed type-relevant clustering and further possible selection. Based on this, we considered a new mathematical model suitable for establishing an alternative and potential indicator of clustering/selection. As an immediate objective, we set a goal to study the relationship between the value of PA and its modified integrative index, i.e. the PA/BW ratio, on the one hand, and egg performance indicators, i.e. EN and egg mass yield (EMY), on the other, when grouping breeds using the TCM and GCM1 models.

Materials and methods

The main experimental details, methods and original datasets are described elsewhere (Romanov et al., Reference Romanov, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Mitrofanova, Dementieva, Stanishevskaya, Vakhrameev, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova and Griffin2021; Vakhrameev and Makarova, Reference Vakhrameev and Makarova2021; Larkina et al., Reference Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Mitrofanova, Dementieva, Stanishevskaya, Vakhrameev, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Brazhnik, Griffin and Romanov2021a; Vakhrameev et al., Reference Vakhrameev, Narushin, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Dysin, Dementieva, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Bondarenko, Griffin and Romanov2022). Briefly, a total of 759 chickens from 39 breeds were used for collecting and analysing phenotypic (performance) traits: Amrock (Ar), Aurora Blue (AB), Australorp Black (AoB), Australorp Black Speckled (ABS), Bantam Mille Fleur (or Russian Korolyok; BMF), Brahma Buff (BB), Brahma Light (BL), Cochin Bantam (or Pekin Bantam; CB), Faverolles Salmon (FS), Frizzle (F), Hamburg Silver Spangled Dwarf (HSSD), Leghorn Light Brown (or Italian Partridge; LLB), Leningrad Golden-and-gray (LGG), Leningrad Mille Fleur (LMF), Minorca Black (MB), Moscow Game (MG), Naked Neck (NN), New Hampshire (NH), Orloff Mille Fleur (OMF), Pantsirevka Black (PB), Pavlov Spangled (PS), Pavlov White (PW), Pervomai (Pm), Plymouth Rock Barred (PRB), Poland White-crested Black (PWB), Poltava Clay (PC), Pushkin (Pu), Red White-tailed Dwarf (RWD), Rhode Island Red (RIR), Russian Crested (RC), Russian White (RW), Silkie White (SW), Sussex Light (SL), Tsarskoye Selo (Ts), Ukrainian Muffed (or Ushanka; UM), Uzbek Game (or Kulangi; UG), White Cornish × (Brahma Light × Sussex Light) (crossbred; WC × [BL × SL]), Yurlov Crower (YC), Zagorsk Salmon (ZS) (Table 1). All birds came from, and maintained at, the same Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding (RRIFAGB) experimental farm, i.e. the Bioresource Collection (known as the Genetic Collection of Rare and Endangered Chicken Breeds), a subsidiary of the RRIFAGB Center for Collective Use. The evaluation age of birds was 52 weeks (or 1 year). The ratio of females to males in each breed flock was 8♀:1♂. The minimum number of females in each breed was 100. The collected traits encompassed measurements of PA (using a goniometer; Fig. 1) and BW in both males and females at 52-week age. Also, EN from the onset of egg production to 52 weeks of age and mean EW at 52-week age, as well as the integrative index of EMY, which estimates the total mass of eggs laid for the study period (i.e. EN multiplied EW), were used as indicators of egg performance. Another integrative index, previously proposed by us (Vakhrameev et al., Reference Vakhrameev, Narushin, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Dysin, Dementieva, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Bondarenko, Griffin and Romanov2022) and used in this work, was the specific PA, i.e. the ratio of the angle to body weight of birds (PA/BW).

Table 1. Number of birds and other characteristics of the chicken breeds studied

PA, pectoral angle; BW, body weight; EN, egg number; EW, egg weight; EMY, egg mass yield; IPI, Narushin's integral performance index (Vakhrameev et al., 2023).

Figure 1. Procedure of a correct PA measurement using a goniometer.

To better match the conducted correlation analysis with the stated goals of the study, all the breeds examined were divided into the following four main categories (production types): non-productive, MEB, EMB and ETB. In addition, we performed the principal component analysis (PCA) for these breed categories and, in parallel, for 39 breeds using interbreed Euclid distances based on their respective mean values of PA/BW and IPI. The latter was a new index lately developed by Vakhrameev et al. (Reference Vakhrameev, Narushin, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Dysin, Dementieva, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Bondarenko, Griffin and Romanov2023) to assess the key performance traits in chickens. This index was named here after the study's author Valeriy G. Narushin, who first suggested it, and was calculated using the following respective formula:

$${\rm IPI} = \displaystyle{{{\rm EMY}} \over {{\rm BW}}}$$

where IPI is Narushin's integral performance index, EMY is egg mass yield and BW is a mean female body weight.

PCA plots were generated using the Phantasus web tool (Zenkova et al., Reference Zenkova, Kamenev, Sablina, Artyomov and Sergushichev2018), while Neighbor Joining (Saitou and Nei, Reference Saitou and Nei1987) trees were retrieved using the online T-REX program (Boc et al., Reference Boc, Diallo and Makarenkov2012).

Mathematical and statistical analyses and approximations were performed using MS Excel applications as well as the advanced analytics software package STATISTICA 5.5 (StatSoft, Inc./TIBCO, Palo Alto, CA, USA). In particular, statistical calculations were carried out according to the conventional formulae of statistical analysis including computation of mean values, standard deviation (SD) and correlation coefficient. In addition to basic statistics such as mean, SD, etc., correlation analysis was employed using STATISTICA 5.5.

Results

To generalize the analysis of egg performance and conformation scores for females and males corresponding to different types of production and purpose of use, the 39 breeds studied were grouped into four categories: three productive, ETB, EMB and MEB, which were created for utility purposes, and one broad category of ‘non-productive breeds’. The latter embraced the breed types of FB and GB that are clearly not meant for poultry meat and/or egg production.

As shown in Fig. 2, the correlation dependence of egg performance on the PA value in females had a slight tendency to increase as it approached ETB selected and used purely for egg production. However, there was an inverse relationship among males. A closer correlation relationship was observed between egg productivity and BW values in both hens and roosters within non-productive and ETB (Fig. 3), although this did not seem to be the case within MEB and ETB. This fact justified the acceptability of using the proposed integrative PA/BW index (Vakhrameev et al., Reference Vakhrameev, Narushin, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Dysin, Dementieva, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Bondarenko, Griffin and Romanov2022) in the correlation analysis relative to EMY values, the results of which are adduced in Fig. 4. Of note, the correlation values based on PA (Fig. 2) and PA/BW (Fig. 4) when approaching toward ETB were higher in females than in males, with inverse sexual differences in the correlation based on BW (Fig. 3). GCM1 test results, along with related graphs, are presented in Supplementary Material S1. The correlation between egg productivity and PA values fully corresponded to the trend we previously observed for PCM (Vakhrameev et al., Reference Vakhrameev, Narushin, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Dysin, Dementieva, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Bondarenko, Griffin and Romanov2022).

Figure 2. Correlation (EMY = f(PA)) between egg productivity of the breeding flocks and PA values in hens and roosters when grouping the studied breeds according to the traditional classification model. Values at the y-axis conform to coefficients of correlation.

Figure 3. Correlation (EMY = f(BW)) between egg productivity of the breeding flocks and body weight of hens and roosters when grouping the studied breeds according to the traditional classification model.

Figure 4. Correlation (EMY = f(PA/BW)) between egg productivity of the breeding flocks and value of the specific PA index in hens and roosters when grouping the studied breeds according to the traditional classification model.

To assess and analyse the validity of the correlations that served as the basis for plotting graphical dependencies (Figs 2–4), the appropriate correlation coefficients and, accordingly, their significance values were computed and are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Values and significance of the correlation coefficients used for plotting the graphical dependencies between egg mass yield (EMY), pectoral angle (PA), body weight (BW) and the PA/BW ratio (as shown in Figs 2–4)

a P < 0.05; the values without any index are insignificant.

To verify the above breed distinction models according to the categories (production types), we obtained the PCA plots showing a distinct separation of these categories. This confirmed that the correlation dependences and indices we inferred here for the main egg and meat performance traits were valid and generally reliable. When retrieving clustering patterns for 39 single breeds using PA/BW values in females (Supplementary Fig. S2a, b), these formed a boomerang-like curve. Its right end was composed of five mostly non-productive bantam (dwarf) breeds (SW, BMF, CB, HSSD and RWD) followed by three non-productive FBs (PS, PW and PWB). Further, ETBs (RW, LLB) and EMBs (RIR, LGG, NH and LMF) were localized, being overlapped and intermingled with some MEBs. At the very left end of this boomerang-like curve, there was one MTB (of crossbred chickens) followed by several MEBs (YC, Pm, ABS, PRB, AoB, FS, SL and PC).

Use of the Narushin's IPI indicator resulted in distinguishing the four breed categories (Fig. 5) similarly to the PA/BW-based pattern (Fig. 6a), although the separation of the egg type and egg-meat type was not so obvious. The respective PCA plot (Supplementary Fig. S2c) also showed a boomerang-like curve with a similar arrangement of the 39 breeds at two ends of this curve as was seen in Supplementary Fig. S2a. The Neighbor Joining tree (Supplementary Fig. S2d) had a similar two-branch topology, with each of two major branches having the same breed sets. Thus, the proposed correlation-derived model for distinguishing the four breed categories relative to their production types and based on PA and PA-derived indices was to a larger extent verified by the PCA and Neighbor Joining clustering analyses.

Figure 5. PCA plot for four breed categories using the IPI values in females. Plot composed in the plane of the first (x-axis, PC1) and second (y-axis, PC2) components.

Figure 6. PCA plots for four breed categories using the mean PA/BW values in females. (a) Plot composed in the plane of the first (x-axis, PC1) and second (y-axis, PC2) components. (b) Plot drawn in the plane of the first (x-axis, PC1) and third (y-axis, PC3) components.

Discussion

The development of the pectoral muscles of a bird is essential for its viability both in the wild and in conditions of keeping on productive farms. The pectoral muscles provide the work of the wings. With wings, the bird carries out flights and maintains balance. In many birds, wings serve as a defence-attack tool, especially in waterfowl. Thus, we hypothesize that the level of development of the pectoral muscles can serve as an indicator of the viability and general tonus of the bird, which is directly related to reproductive functions, primarily egg production.

It is important to characterize available genetic resources using conventional and new methods for their further breeding and effective utilization (e.g. Moiseyeva et al., Reference Moiseyeva, Bannikova and Altukhov1993; Moiseeva, Reference Moiseeva1995; Moiseyeva, Reference Moiseyeva1996; Sulimova et al., Reference Sulimova, Stolpovsky, Kashtanov, Moiseeva and Zakharov2005). As is known from classical works on poultry breeding (e.g. Abplanalp et al., Reference Abplanalp, Asmundson and Lerner1960), integrative selection indices have been recommended on the basis of statistics and genetics as a way to combine data on several measured phenotypic characteristics into a single selection criterion. In theory, it is anticipated that selection choices based on such integrative indices will result in the greatest genetic gains in terms of presumptive economic values under mass selection (Abplanalp et al., Reference Abplanalp, Asmundson and Lerner1960). However, even if the genetic parameters are precisely determined for a given population, it is possible that they will not apply perfectly to subsequent generations of that population/breed or to other populations/breeds that are similar to the population for which they are being used (Abplanalp et al., Reference Abplanalp, Asmundson and Lerner1960). Here, we proposed to revisit the conventional phenotypic trait, PA, and introduced two novel integrative indices, EMY and PA/BW, for testing their correlations on a large breed spectrum of the world chicken gene pool grouped by the four major types within two previous classification/clustering models (Larkina et al., Reference Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Mitrofanova, Dementieva, Stanishevskaya, Vakhrameev, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Brazhnik, Griffin and Romanov2021a).

The direct approximation of EMY values by PA values did not result in a meaningful correlation dependence respective to the four breed types according to TCM (Fig. 2). However, the use of PA/BW instead of simple PA values led to much more comprehended and convincing correlation changes (Fig. 4). The latter were even more distinct than those obtained by Vakhrameev et al. (Reference Vakhrameev, Narushin, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Dysin, Dementieva, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Bondarenko, Griffin and Romanov2022) for the same dependence within PCM. On the other hand, the GCM1-derived results were comparatively similar to the PCM-based correlation pattern (Vakhrameev et al., Reference Vakhrameev, Narushin, Larkina, Barkova, Peglivanyan, Dysin, Dementieva, Makarova, Shcherbakov, Pozovnikova, Bondarenko, Griffin and Romanov2022). Thus, taking into account the results obtained, a comparative assessment of the three models allows us to lean toward TCM in terms of correlation between two integrative indices, EMY and PA/BW.

Interestingly, we observe a higher correlation for ETB females than males when comparing EMY values v. PA (Fig. 2) and PA/BW (Fig. 4). This was due to a well-known fact that males and females exhibit sexual dimorphism for PA, with males having noticeably wider breast angles (Siegel, Reference Siegel1962a). It is noteworthy and should be taken into account that not all correlation coefficients were significant (Table 2). This is quite understandable, since we operated with averaged data for each breed type, of which there were not so many in the corresponding productivity categories. The latter fact was one of the criteria in the significance calculation. Nevertheless, even these data made it possible to track the trend of changes in the correlation coefficients for various relationships between performance parameters.

The PA heritability ranges from approximately 0.3 to 0.5 (Siegel, Reference Siegel1962a), which is considered to be moderate to high estimates (Siegel, Reference Siegel1963). This makes PA a reasonable target for direct and correlated selection response. In the case of correlated response, the related modification of an unselected trait occurs when artificial selection affects the targeted specific trait (Siegel, Reference Siegel1962b). This associated response may be a result of genetic effects (induced by pleiotropy and linkage), environmental factors or a mix of both (Siegel, Reference Siegel1963). In this respect, we suggest that such a correlated change in PA and/or PA-based integrative index could be expected in response to selection for egg performance traits, especially when using the EMY integrative index. There is another known correlated response example (Szwaczkowski, Reference Szwaczkowski, Muir and Aggrey2003) where selection for meat traits (including PA) results in a correlated decrease in egg production in MTB. At the same time, selection for egg traits correlates and inversely affects meat traits in ETB. This well-established correlation pattern was confirmed in our experiment (Fig. 3).

Our findings regarding PA, integrative indices and corresponding correlations established with respect to the main phenotypic (productive) traits on a wide sample of the global chicken gene pool will facilitate their worthy application in future research on poultry breeding, conservation and utilization of genetic resources, and phenomics (Bondarenko et al., Reference Bondarenko, Rozhkovsky, Romanov and Bogatyr1989; Romanov, Reference Romanov1994; Tixier-Boichard et al., Reference Tixier-Boichard, Coquerelle, Vilela-Lamego, Weigend, Barre-Dirrie, Groenen, Crooijmans, Vignal, Hillel, Freidlin, Wimmers, Ponsuksili, Burke, Thomson, Elo, Mäki-Tanila, Baldane, Baumgartner, Benkova, Bondarenko, Podstreshny, Campo, Cywa-Benko, Jego, Knizetova, Moiseeva, Protais, Pidone, Rault, Trefil, van Sambeek, Virag and Hidas1999; Tagirov et al., Reference Tagirov, Tereshchenko and Tereshchenko2006; Tereshchenko et al., Reference Tereshchenko, Katerinich, Pankova and Borodai2015; Khvostyk et al., Reference Khvostyk, Tereshchenko, Zakharchenko and Bondarenko2017; Silva et al., Reference Silva, Morota and Rosa2021).

Conclusion

In the present study, we revisited and evaluated PA, the traditional anatomical phenotypic trait, and its specific integrative index PA/BW in terms of their applicability for exploring the respective correlations and distinguishing the main types of various divergently selected chicken breeds within two classification/clustering models, TCM and GCM1. An additional integrative egg performance index, EMY, was also shown to be useful for this purpose. Four breed types derived from TCM did not show significant correlations when the EMY values were directly approximated with the PA and BW values. However, substantial correlation values were obtained when PA/BW was used instead of just PA and BW. In comparison to roosters, we observed a greater connection between EMY and PA/BW in hens. This may be attributed to the well-known fact that roosters and hens show sexual dimorphism in PA, with roosters typically having wider PA than hens (Siegel, Reference Siegel1962a). The obtained results can be further used in poultry breeding, conservation-related research and phenome-associated studies.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S002185962300045X

Author contributions

Conceptualization, A. B. V., V. G. N. and M. N. R.; methodology, A. B. V., V. G. N., Y. S. S. and M. N. R.; validation, A. B. V. and T. A. L.; software, V. G. N.; formal analysis, A. B. V., V. G. N., Y. S. S. and M. N. R.; investigation, A. B. V., T. A. L., O. Y. B. and G. K. P.; resources, A. B. V. and G. K. P.; data curation, A. B. V., T. A. L., G. K. P., N. V. D. and M. V. P.; writing – original draft preparation, A. B. V., V. G. N., A. P. D. and M. N. R.; writing – review and editing, V. G. N., D. K. G. and M. N. R.; visualization, V. G. N.; supervision, T. A. L.; project administration, T. A. L.; funding acquisition, N. V. D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Financial support

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (State Assignment Program No. 0445-2021-0010). Generation of genotypic clustering model based on SNP genotype data was performed with financial support of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, Grant No. 075-15-2021-1037 (Internal No. 15.BRK.21.0001).

Competing interests

None.

Ethical standards

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the L. K. Ernst Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry (Protocol No. 2020-4 dated 3 March 2020).

Data availability statement

The data presented in this study are available in this article and supplementary material.

References

Abplanalp, H, Asmundson, VS and Lerner, IM (1960) Experimental tests of a selection index. Poultry Science 39, 151160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boc, A, Diallo, AB and Makarenkov, V (2012) T-REX: a web server for inferring, validating and visualizing phylogenetic trees and networks. Nucleic Acids Research 40, W573W579.10.1093/nar/gks485CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bondarenko, YV and Khvostyk, VP (2020) Pokrashhennya produktyvnosti m'yaso-yayechnyh kurej vitchyznyanoyi selekciyi [Improving the productivity of meat and egg chickens of domestic selection]. Visnyk Sums′koho Natsional′noho ahrarnoho universytetu, Seriya Tvarynnytstvo [Bulletin of the Sumy National Agrarian University, Series Livestock] 2, 2932.Google Scholar
Bondarenko, YV, Rozhkovsky, AV, Romanov, MN and Bogatyr, VP (1989) [The use of genetical systems in the development of autosex crosses of egg-laying chickens]. Ptitsevodstvo (Kiev) 42, 1114.Google Scholar
Bratishko, NI, Gaviley, EV, Pritulenko, OV and Tereshchenko, AV (2012) [Triticale in feeding meat-egg chickens]. Ptitsevodstvo 4, 4143.Google Scholar
Cao, H, Dong, X, Mao, H, Xu, N and Yin, Z (2019) Expression analysis of the PITX2 gene and associations between its polymorphisms and body size and carcass traits in chickens. Animals 9, 1001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chatterjee, RN, Sharma, RP, Reddy, MR, Niranjan, M and Reddy, BLN (2007) Growth, body conformation and immune responsiveness in two Indian native chicken breeds. Livestock Research for Rural Development 19, 151.Google Scholar
Das, AK, Kumar, S, Rahim, A, Kokatate, LS and Mishra, AK (2014) Assessment of body conformation, feed efficiency and morphological characteristics in Rhode Island Red-White strain chicken. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 84, 986991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, AK, Kumar, S, Rahim, A, Kokate, LS and Mishra, AK (2015a) Genetic analysis of body conformation and feed efficiency characteristics in a selected line of Rhode Island Red chicken. Asian Journal of Animal Sciences 9, 434440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, AK, Kumar, S and Rahim, A (2015b) Genetics of body conformation and feed efficiency characteristics in a control line of Rhode Island Red chicken. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science 5, 965973.Google Scholar
Das, AK, Kumar, S, Rahim, A, Kokate, LS and Mishra, AK (2016) Assessment of body conformation and feed efficiency characteristics in CARI-Debendra crossbred grower chicken. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 86, 14721475.Google Scholar
Das, AK, Mishra, AK, Kumar, S, Rahim, A and Kokate, LS (2017) Characterizing grower performance, body conformation and morphology in crosses of RIR and Indian native chicken genotypes. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 87, 118121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal'pern, IL, Perinek, OY and Fedorova, ZL (2020) [The using of two gene pool breeds of chickens to create a 3-linear egg-meat cross]. Ptitsa i ptitseprodukty [Poultry and Chicken Products] 1, 3439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, RL, Li, ZJ, Li, MJ, Li, JQ, Lan, XY, Sun, GR, Kang, XT and Chen, H (2011) Novel 9-bp indel in visfatin gene and its associations with chicken growth. British Poultry Science 52, 5257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khvostyk, V, Tereshchenko, O, Zakharchenko, O and Bondarenko, Y (2017) [Influence of ‘adding blood’ of cocks of foreign crosses upon economically beneficial attributes of meat-egg hens of domestic selection]. Visnyk agrarnoi nauki 95, 4448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulibaba, RA, Liashenko, YV and Yurko, PS (2018) Genetic differentiation of Ukranian chicken breeds using various types of molecular genetic markers. Sel'skokhozyaistvennaya Biologiya [Agricultural Biology] 53, 282292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larkina, TA, Barkova, OY, Peglivanyan, GK, Mitrofanova, OV, Dementieva, NV, Stanishevskaya, OI, Vakhrameev, AB, Makarova, AV, Shcherbakov, YS, Pozovnikova, MV, Brazhnik, EA, Griffin, DK and Romanov, MN (2021a) Evolutionary subdivision of domestic chickens: implications for local breeds as assessed by phenotype and genotype in comparison to commercial and fancy breeds. Agriculture 11, 914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larkina, TA, Romanov, MN, Barkova, OYu, Peglivanyan, GK, Mitrofanova, OV, Dementieva, NV, Stanishevskaya, OI, Vakhrameev, AB, Makarova, AV, Shcherbakov, YS, Pozovnikova, MV and Griffin, DK (2021b) [Genetic variation of the NCAPG-LCORL locus in chickens of local breeds based on SNP genotyping data]. In [Materials of the 3rd International Scientific and Practical Conference on Molecular Genetic Technologies for Analysis of Gene Expression Related to Animal Productivity and Disease Resistance], 29 September 2021, Moscow, Russia, pp. 133–146. Moscow, Russia: Sel'skokhozyaistvennye tekhnologii. https://doi.org/10.18720/SPBPU/2/z21-43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lei, M, Peng, X, Zhou, M, Luo, C, Nie, Q and Zhang, X (2008) Polymorphisms of the IGF1R gene and their genetic effects on chicken early growth and carcass traits. BMC Genetics 9, 70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, H, Wang, S, Yan, F, Liu, X, Jiang, R, Han, R, Li, Z, Li, G, Tian, Y, Kang, X and Sun, G (2015a) Effect of polymorphism within miRNA-1606 gene on growth and carcass traits in chicken. Gene 566, 812.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Li, H, Jiang, KR, Wang, SH, Liu, XJ, Kang, XT, Jiang, RR, Li, ZJ and Sun, GR (2015b) Assessment of correlation between pre-miRNA-1757 polymorphism and chicken performance traits. Genetics and Molecular Research 14, 1218412195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miguel, JA, Ciria, J, Asenjo, B and Calvo, JL (2008) Effect of caponisation on growth and on carcass and meat characteristics in Castellana Negra native Spanish chickens. Animal 2, 305311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mishra, MC and Singh, CV (2011) Genetic study on growth rate, body conformation and feed efficiency traits in broilers. The Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 76. https://epubs.icar.org.in/index.php/IJAnS/article/view/4545Google Scholar
Moiseeva, I (1995) [Chicken genetic resources in Russia]. Ptitsevodstvo [Poultry Farming] 5, 1215, Google Scholar.Google Scholar
Moiseyeva, IG (1996) The state of poultry genetic resources in Russia. Animal Genetic Resources 17, 7386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moiseyeva, IG, Bannikova, LV and Altukhov, Y (1993) [State of poultry breeding in Russia: genetic monitoring]. Mezhdunarodnyi sel'skokhozyaystvennyi zhurnal [International Agronomic Journal] 5–6, 6669, Google Scholar.Google Scholar
Mueller, S, Kreuzer, M, Siegrist, M, Mannale, K, Messikommer, RE and Gangnat, IDM (2018) Carcass and meat quality of dual-purpose chickens (Lohmann Dual, Belgian Malines, Schweizerhuhn) in comparison to broiler and layer chicken types. Poultry Science 97, 33253336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandey, SS, Behura, NC, Samal, L, Pati, PK and Nayak, GD (2018) Evaluation of juvenile growth, feed efficiency and body conformation traits of native × CSFL crossbred chicken under intensive system of rearing. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 7, 33703376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romanov, MN (1994) Using phenetic approaches for studying poultry populations under preservation and breeding. In Gene Mapping, Polymorphisms, Disease Genetic Markers, Marker Assisted Selection, Gene Expression, Transgenes, Non-conventional Animal Products, Conservation Genetics, Conservation of Domestic Animal Genetic Resources, Proceedings of the 5th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 7–12 August 1994, Guelph, Canada; Volume 21, pp. 556–559. Guelph, Canada: International Committee for World Congresses on Genetics applied to Livestock Production, University of Guelph.Google Scholar
Romanov, MN, Larkina, TA, Barkova, OY, Peglivanyan, GK, Mitrofanova, OV, Dementieva, NV, Stanishevskaya, OI, Vakhrameev, AB, Makarova, AV, Shcherbakov, YS, Pozovnikova, MV and Griffin, DK (2021) [Comparative analysis of phenotypic traits in various breeds representing the world poultry gene pool]. In [Materials of the 3rd International Scientific and Practical Conference on Molecular Genetic Technologies for Analysis of Gene Expression Related to Animal Productivity and Disease Resistance], 29 September 2021, Moscow, Russia, pp. 52–63. Moscow, Russia: Sel'skokhozyaistvennye tekhnologii. https://doi.org/10.18720/SPBPU/2/z21-43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saitou, N and Nei, M (1987) The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 4, 406425.Google Scholar
Siegel, PB (1962a) Selection for breast angle at eight weeks of age: 1. Gene interactions and heritabilities. Poultry Science 41, 11771185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, PB (1962b) A double selection experiment for body weight and breast angle at eight weeks of age in chickens. Genetics 47, 13131319.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, PB (1963) Selection for breast angle at eight weeks of age: 2. Correlated responses of feathering, body weights and reproductive characteristics. Poultry Science 42, 437449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, PB and Siegel, HS (1963) The correlated response of relative aggressiveness to selection for body weight and breast angle in chickens. Poultry Science 42, 12081211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, FF, Morota, G and Rosa, GJM (2021) Editorial: high-throughput phenotyping in the genomic improvement of livestock. Frontiers in Genetics 12, 707343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Softić, A, Kavazović, A, Gagić, A, Katica, V, Šakić, V and Varatanović, M (2011) Effect of probiotics on body conformation of the fattening chickens. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 27, 16291634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulimova, GE, Stolpovsky, YA, Kashtanov, SN, Moiseeva, IG and Zakharov, IA (2005) [Methods of managing the genetic resources of domesticated animals]. In: Rysin L P, ed., [Fundamentals of Biological Resource Management: Collection of Scientific Articles]. Partnership of Scientific Publications KMK LLC, Moscow, Russia; pp. 331–342. ISBN: 5-87317-254-4. Available at https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=50435256 (accessed 7 August 2023). Google Scholar.Google Scholar
Szwaczkowski, T (2003) Use of mixed model methodology in poultry breeding: estimation of genetic parameters. In Muir, WM and Aggrey, SE (eds), Poultry Genetics, Breeding and Biotechnology. Wallingford, Oxon, UK; Cambridge, MA, USA: CAB International, pp. 187188.Google Scholar
Tagirov, MT, Tereshchenko, LV and Tereshchenko, AV (2006) [Substantiation of the possibility of using primary germ cells as material for the preservation of poultry genetic resources]. Ptakhivnytstvo 58, 464473.Google Scholar
Tereshchenko, OV, Katerinich, OO, Pankova, SM and Borodai, VP (2015) [Formation of genetic resources of domestic breeds of poultry in the context of food security of the state]. Sučasne Ptahìvnictvo, 1921.Google Scholar
Tixier-Boichard, M, Coquerelle, G, Vilela-Lamego, C, Weigend, S, Barre-Dirrie, A, Groenen, M, Crooijmans, R, Vignal, A, Hillel, J, Freidlin, P, Wimmers, K, Ponsuksili, S, Burke, T, Thomson, P, Elo, K, Mäki-Tanila, A, Baldane, G, Baumgartner, J, Benkova, J, Bondarenko, Y, Podstreshny, A, Campo, J, Cywa-Benko, K, Jego, Y, Knizetova, H, Moiseeva, I, Protais, M, Pidone, G, Rault, P, Trefil, P, van Sambeek, F, Virag, G and Hidas, A (1999) Contribution of data on history, management and phenotype to the description of the diversity between chicken populations sampled within the AVIANDIV project. In Preisinger R (ed). Proceedings of the Poultry Genetics Symposium, 6–8 October 1999, Mariensee, Germany, pp. 15–21. Cuxhaven, Germany: Working Group 3 of WPSA, Lohmann Tierzucht. Available at https://jukuri.luke.fi/handle/10024/446389 (accessed 7 August 2023). Google Scholar.Google Scholar
Vakhrameev, AB and Makarova, AV (2021) [Exterior Assessment of Chickens: Monograph], Electronic resource (CD-R). Dubrovitsy, Russia: Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, Russian Research Institute of Farm Animal Genetics and Breeding – Branch of the Federal State Budgetary Scientific Institution ‘Federal Research Center for Animal Husbandry – VIZh named after Academician L.K. Ernst’, Publishing House of FSBSI FRC VIZh named after L.K. Ernst.Google Scholar
Vakhrameev, AB, Narushin, VG, Larkina, TA, Barkova, OY, Peglivanyan, GK, Dysin, AP, Dementieva, NV, Makarova, AV, Shcherbakov, YS, Pozovnikova, MV, Bondarenko, Y, Griffin, DK and Romanov, MN (2022) Selection-driven chicken phenome and phenomenon of pectoral angle variation across different chicken phenotypes. Livestock Science 264, 105067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vakhrameev, AB, Narushin, VG, Larkina, TA, Barkova, OY, Peglivanyan, GK, Dysin, AP, Dementieva, NV, Makarova, AV, Shcherbakov, YS, Pozovnikova, MV, Bondarenko, YuV, Griffin, DK and Romanov, MN (2023) Disentangling clustering configuration intricacies for divergently selected chicken breeds. Scientific Reports 13, 3319. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-28651-8.Google ScholarPubMed
Zenkova, D, Kamenev, V, Sablina, R, Artyomov, M and Sergushichev, A (2018) Phantasus: visual and interactive gene expression analysis. https://doi.org/10.18129/B9.bioc.phantasus. Available at https://ctlab.itmo.ru/phantasus (accessed 7 August 2023).Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Number of birds and other characteristics of the chicken breeds studied

Figure 1

Figure 1. Procedure of a correct PA measurement using a goniometer.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Correlation (EMY = f(PA)) between egg productivity of the breeding flocks and PA values in hens and roosters when grouping the studied breeds according to the traditional classification model. Values at the y-axis conform to coefficients of correlation.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Correlation (EMY = f(BW)) between egg productivity of the breeding flocks and body weight of hens and roosters when grouping the studied breeds according to the traditional classification model.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Correlation (EMY = f(PA/BW)) between egg productivity of the breeding flocks and value of the specific PA index in hens and roosters when grouping the studied breeds according to the traditional classification model.

Figure 5

Table 2. Values and significance of the correlation coefficients used for plotting the graphical dependencies between egg mass yield (EMY), pectoral angle (PA), body weight (BW) and the PA/BW ratio (as shown in Figs 2–4)

Figure 6

Figure 5. PCA plot for four breed categories using the IPI values in females. Plot composed in the plane of the first (x-axis, PC1) and second (y-axis, PC2) components.

Figure 7

Figure 6. PCA plots for four breed categories using the mean PA/BW values in females. (a) Plot composed in the plane of the first (x-axis, PC1) and second (y-axis, PC2) components. (b) Plot drawn in the plane of the first (x-axis, PC1) and third (y-axis, PC3) components.

Supplementary material: File

Vakhrameev et al. supplementary material 1

Vakhrameev et al. supplementary material
Download Vakhrameev et al. supplementary material 1(File)
File 184 KB
Supplementary material: File

Vakhrameev et al. supplementary material 2

Vakhrameev et al. supplementary material
Download Vakhrameev et al. supplementary material 2(File)
File 60.4 KB