ArticleHeredity2011
Evolutionary study of a potential selection target region in the pig.
Article in Heredity, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- A 20-SNP Panel as a Tool for Genetic Authentication and Traceability of Pig Breeds.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Porcine Y-chromosome variation is consistent with the occurrence of paternal gene flow from non-Asian to Asian populations.Heredity · 2018Article
- MicroRNA in sperm from Duroc, Landrace and Yorkshire boars.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Possible introgression of the VRTN mutation increasing vertebral number, carcass length and teat number from Chinese pigs into European pigs.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Article
- Review
- Dissecting structural and nucleotide genome-wide variation in inbred Iberian pigs.BMC genomics · 2013Article
- Article
- Nucleotide variability and linkage disequilibrium patterns in the porcine MUC4 gene.BMC genetics · 2012Article
- Genomic Diversity in Pig (Sus scrofa) and its Comparison with Human and other Livestock.Current genomics · 2011Article
- Optimal neutrality tests based on the frequency spectrum.Genetics · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Domestication, modern breeding and artificial selection have shaped dramatically the genomic variability of domestic animals. In livestock, the so-called FAT1 quantitative trait locus (QTL) in porcine chromosome 4 was the first QTL uncovered although, to date, its precise molecular nature has remained elusive. Here, we characterize the nucleotide variability of 13 fragments of ∼500 bp equally spaced in a 2 Mb region in the vicinity of the FAT1 region in a wide-diversity panel of 32 pigs. Asian and European animals, including local Mediterranean and international pig breeds, were sequenced. Patterns of genetic variability were very complex and varied largely across loci and populations; they did not reveal overall a clear signal of a selective sweep in any breed, although FABP4 fragment showed a significantly higher diversity. We used an approximate Bayesian computation approach to infer the evolutionary history of this SSC4 region. Notably, we found that European pig populations have a much lower effective size than their Asian counterparts: in the order of hundreds vs hundreds of thousands. We show also an important part of extant European variability is actually due to introgression of Asian germplasm into Europe. This study shows how a potential loss in diversity caused by bottlenecks and possible selective sweeps associated with domestication and artificial selection can be counterbalanced by migration, making it much more difficult the identification of selection footprints based on naive demographic assumptions. Given the small fragment analyzed here, it remains to be studied how these conclusions apply to the rest of the genome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.