Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21107721›Full record

ArticleMolecular biology reports2011

Analyses of porcine public SNPs in coding-gene regions by re-sequencing and phenotypic association studies.

Xiaoping Li, Sang-Wook Kim, Kyoung-Tag Do, You-Kyoung Ha, Yun-Mi Lee, Suk-Hee Yoon, Hee-Bal Kim, Jong-Joo Kim, Bong-Hwan Choi, Kwan-Suk Kim

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular biology reports, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Genomic Inbreeding and Runs of Homozygosity Analysis of Cashmere Goat.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

10 authors.

Xiaoping LiDepartment of Animal Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Chungbuk, 361-763, South Korea.
Sang-Wook Kim
Kyoung-Tag Do
You-Kyoung Ha
Yun-Mi Lee
Suk-Hee Yoon
Hee-Bal Kim
Jong-Joo Kim
Bong-Hwan Choi
Kwan-Suk Kim

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Porcine SNP database has a huge number of SNPs, but these SNPs are mostly found by computer data-mining procedures and have not been well characterized. We re-sequenced 1,439 porcine public SNPs from four commercial pig breeds and one Korean domestic breed (Korean Native pig, KNP) by using two DNA pools from eight unrelated animals in each breed. These SNPs were from 419 protein-coding genes covering the 18 autosomes, and the re-sequencing in breeds confirmed 690 public SNPs (47.9%) and 226 novel mutations (173 SNPs and 53 insertions/deletions). Thus, totally, 916 variations were found from our study. Of the 916 variations, 148 SNPs (16.2%) were found across all the five breeds, and 199 SNPs (21.7%) were breed specific polymorphisms. According to the SNP locations in the gene sequences, these 916 variations were categorized into 802 non-coding SNPs (785 in intron, 17 in 3'-UTR) and 114 coding SNPs (86 synonymous SNPs, 28 non-synonymous SNPs). The nucleotide substitution analyses for these SNPs revealed that 70.2% were from transitions, 20.0% from transversions, and the remaining 5.79% were deletions or insertions. Subsequently, we genotyped 261 SNPs from 180 genes in an experimental KNP × Landrace F2 cross by the Sequenom MassARRAY system. A total of 33 traits including growth, carcass composition and meat quality were analyzed for the phenotypic association tests using the 132 SNPs in 108 genes with minor allele frequency (MAF)>0.2. The association results showed that five marker-trait combinations were significant at the 5% experiment-wise level (ADCK4 for rear leg, MYH3 for rear leg, Hunter B, Loin weight and Shearforce) and four at the 10% experiment-wise level (DHX38 for average daily gain at live weight, LGALS9 for crude lipid, NGEF for front leg and LIFR for pH at 24 h). In addition, 49 SNPs in 44 genes showing significant association with the traits were detected at the 1% comparison-wise level. A large number of genes that function as enzymes, transcription factors or signalling molecules were considered as genetic markers for pig growth (RNF103, TSPAN31, DHX38, ABCF1, ABCC10, SCD5, KIAA0999 and FKBP10), muscling (HSPA5, PTPRM, NUP88, ADCK4, PLOD1, DLX1 and GRM8), fatness (PTGIS, IDH3B, RYR2 and NOL4) and meat quality traits (DUSP4, LIFR, NGEF, EWSR1, ACTN2, PLXND1, DLX3, LGALS9, ENO3, EPRS, TRIM29, EHMT2, RBM42, SESN2 and RAB4B). The SNPs or genes reported here may be beneficial to future marker assisted selection breeding in pigs.

Indexed as

AllelesAnimalsBreedingChromosomes, MammalianCrosses, GeneticFemaleGenetic Association StudiesMaleMeatOpen Reading FramesPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait LociReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, DNASus scrofa

Identifiers

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.