ArticleVeterinary research communications2026
Comparative genomic analysis of pigs differing in survival following African swine fever virus infection.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
African swine fever remains a major constraint on global pig production because effective treatment is unavailable, and disease control relies primarily on biosecurity and outbreak management. Field observations from endemic regions increasingly suggest that some domestic pigs can survive exposure to ASFV. Therefore, the aim of this study was to characterize genomic differences between Mozambican Landim pigs that survived or died after natural ASFV infection and to identify variants potentially associated with differential disease survival. Whole-genome sequencing was performed on 32 naturally exposed Landim pigs, including 16 survivors and 16 non-survivors, and the resulting reads were aligned to the Sscrofa11.1 reference genome. Variant frequencies were compared between groups, and functional annotation was performed. Genetic structure was assessed using PCA, genetic distance-based clustering, and admixture. The data revealed marked genomic differentiation between survivors and non-survivors. Comparative analysis identified 4,804 polymorphisms that significantly differentiated, of which 45.0% were intergenic. Missense variants were identified in the TTC12 and WWC1 genes, and functional annotation of genes harboring significantly differentiating variants indicated processes related to immune regulation, T-cell activation, intracellular signaling, cytoskeletal organization, vesicular transport, ubiquitin-dependent proteostasis, and lipid metabolism. Given the marked genetic stratification between survivor and non-survivor groups, the observed differences between them cannot be unambiguously separated from underlying population structure. Therefore, although some of the identified variants may contribute to differential survival following ASFV exposure, the findings should be considered exploratory and require validation in larger, independent, genetically comparable populations.
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.