Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20502482›Full record

ArticleHeredity2011

Evolutionary study of a potential selection target region in the pig.

A Ojeda, S E Ramos-Onsins, D Marletta, L S Huang, J M Folch, M Pérez-Enciso

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

A OjedaFacultat de Veterinària, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.
S E Ramos-Onsins
D Marletta
L S Huang
J M Folch
M Pérez-Enciso

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Evolution, MolecularAnimalsBase SequenceBayes TheoremDNAGenetics, PopulationGenotypeMolecular Sequence DataPolymorphism, GeneticQuantitative Trait LociSwineDNA

Identifiers

PMID20502482
PMCPMC3183885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.