Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31847802›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2019

Protein expression profiles in Meishan and Duroc sows during mid-gestation reveal differences affecting uterine capacity, endometrial receptivity, and the maternal-fetal Interface.

Kejun Wang, Kaijie Yang, Qiao Xu, Yufang Liu, Wenting Li, Ying Bai, Jve Wang, Cui Ding, Ximing Liu, Qiguo Tang and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kejun WangDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Kaijie YangDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Qiao XuDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Yufang LiuDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Wenting LiDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Ying BaiDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Jve WangDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Cui DingDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Ximing LiuDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Qiguo TangDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Yabiao LuoDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Jie ZhengDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Keliang WuDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Meiying FangDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, MOA Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding, Beijing key Laboratory for Animal Genetic Improvement, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China. meiying@cau.edu.cn.
China Agricultural University · CN

Funding

Changjiang Scholars and Innovation Research Teams Development Plan IRT1191National Basic Research Program of China 2014CB138504National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (VN) 2011AA100302National Natural Science Foundation of China 31372275 & 31772572
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEmbryonic mortality is a major concern in the commercial swine industry and primarily occurs early in gestation, but also during mid-gestation (~ days 50-70). Previous reports demonstrated that the embryonic loss rate was significant lower in Meishan than in commercial breeds (including Duroc). Most studies have focused on embryonic mortality in early gestation, but little is known about embryonic loss during mid-gestation.

resultsIn this study, protein expression patterns in endometrial tissue from Meishan and Duroc sows were examined during mid-gestation. A total of 2170 proteins were identified in both breeds. After statistical analysis, 70 and 114 differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) were identified in Meishan and Duroc sows, respectively. Between Meishan and Duroc sows, 114 DEPs were detected at day 49, and 98 DEPs were detected at day 72. Functional enrichment analysis revealed differences in protein expression patterns in the two breeds. Around half of DEPs were more highly expressed in Duroc at day 49 (DUD49), relative to DUD72 and Meishan at day 49 (MSD49). Many DEPs appear to be involved in metabolic process such as arginine metabolism. Our results suggest that the differences in expression affect uterine capacity, endometrial matrix remodeling, and maternal-embryo cross-talk, and may be major factors influencing the differences in embryonic loss between Meishan and Duroc sows during mid-gestation.

conclusionsOur data showed differential protein expression pattern in endometrium between Meishan and Duroc sows and provides insight into the development process of endometrium. These findings could help us further uncover the molecular mechanism involved in prolificacy.

Indexed as

AnimalsEndometriumFemaleFetusGestational AgePregnancyPregnancy, AnimalProteinsSwineUterusProteinsEndometriumiTRAQMeishan and Duroc pigsProtein expression

Identifiers

PMID31847802
PMCPMC6918595
OpenAlexW2995405701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.