Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32081854›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2020

Matching STR and SNP genotyping to discriminate between wild boar, domestic pigs and their recent hybrids for forensic purposes.

Rita Lorenzini, Rita Fanelli, Francesco Tancredi, Antonino Siclari, Luisa Garofalo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner": Molecular Tools to ReconstructAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Differentiating Pigs from Wild Boars Based onAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. In vivo (Athens, Greece)
    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

5 authors.

Rita LorenziniIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Regioni Lazio e Toscana "M. Aleandri", Centro di Referenza Nazionale per la Medicina Forense Veterinaria, Via Tancia 21, 02100, Rieti, Italy. rita.lorenzini@izslt.it.
Rita FanelliIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Regioni Lazio e Toscana "M. Aleandri", Centro di Referenza Nazionale per la Medicina Forense Veterinaria, Via Tancia 21, 02100, Rieti, Italy.
Francesco TancrediIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Regioni Lazio e Toscana "M. Aleandri", Via Tancia 21, 02100, Rieti, Italy.
Antonino SiclariEnte Parco Nazionale dell'Aspromonte, Via Aurora 1, 89057 Gambarie di S. Stefano in Aspromonte, Reggio Calabria, Italy.
Luisa GarofaloIstituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale delle Regioni Lazio e Toscana "M. Aleandri", Centro di Referenza Nazionale per la Medicina Forense Veterinaria, Via Tancia 21, 02100, Rieti, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genetic discrimination between phylogenetically close taxa can be challenging if their gene pools are not differentiated and there are many shared polymorphisms. The gene flow between wild boar (Sus scrofa) and domestic pig (S. s. domesticus) has never been interrupted from domestication onwards, due to non-stop natural and human-mediated crossbreeding. To date there are no individual genetic markers that are able to distinguish between the two forms, nor even to identify effectively their hybrids. We developed a combined molecular protocol based on multiplex porcine-specific STR-profiling system and new real time PCR-based assays of single polymorphisms in the NR6A1 and MC1R genes to gain high diagnostic power in the differentiation of wild boar, pig and hybrids for forensic purposes. The combined approach correctly assigned individuals to one or the other parental gene pool and identified admixed genotypes. Evidence was found for substantial reduction of false negative results by using multiple marker systems jointly, compared to their use individually. Our protocol is a powerful and cost-effective diagnostic tool that can easily be adopted by most forensic laboratories to assist authorities contrast food adulteration, assure veterinary public health and fight against wildlife crimes, like poaching and illegal detention of wild animals.

Indexed as

Forensic MedicineGenotyping TechniquesHybridization, GeneticAnimalsBayes TheoremGenetic LociMicrosatellite RepeatsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideProbabilitySus scrofaSwine

Identifiers

PMID32081854
PMCPMC7035276

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.