Next Article in Journal
Susceptibility of Field-Collected Nyssorhynchus darlingi to Plasmodium spp. in Western Amazonian Brazil
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Omics Interpretation of Anti-Aging Mechanisms for ω-3 Fatty Acids
Previous Article in Special Issue
Phenotypic and Genomic Analysis of Cystic Hygroma in Pigs
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Pig Genomics and Genetics

by
Katarzyna Piórkowska
* and
Katarzyna Ropka-Molik
National Research Institute of Animal Production, Animal Molecular Biology, 31-047 Cracow, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genes 2021, 12(11), 1692; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12111692
Submission received: 15 October 2021 / Accepted: 21 October 2021 / Published: 25 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Pig Genomics and Genetics)
The pig (Sus scrofa) is the most popular large farm animal in the world. They are frequently used as animal models for human medical research due to high biological similarity to humans, such as body proportions [1,2], metabolic process [3,4], adipose tissue distribution and adipocyte size [5]. In addition, both species reveal also a high genetic analogy: the human genome is composed of 3.5 billion bp, the pig genome of 3.0 billion bp; 21,630 protein-coding genes were identified in pigs, while in humans, this is 20,310 [6,7].
On the other hand, molecular biology methods assist agricultural progress, for example, in pig production and breeding. In addition, since the reference genome sequence of the domestic pig was assembled in 2012, the identification processes of crucial phenotypic traits and search of genetic markers for selection have been significantly refined, including the newest wide-range high-throughput techniques. The use of these new genomic tools has the advantage of generating information about multiple genes and gene products in parallel, which makes it possible to identify pathways and gene interactions [8,9]. This approach provides insight into the epistatic effects of genes that could improve understanding of the genetic component of pig phenotype. At first, DNA microarray that is broadly used to date, supports livestock production by predicting the potential genetic breeding value of farm animals [10]. Microarray approach also serves as a research tool in pig breeding, as well. For example, Lee et al. [11] used it to prove that the porcine immune system was affected by different breeding environments, suggesting the importance of controlling microbes in the animal room for qualified research. Another kind of microarray is used to identification of gene expression. In the Sun et al. [12] study, the authors applied cDNA microarray to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between two Chinese pig breeds, pinpointing the association between BAX and BMPR1B genes with litter size. Such methodology allows to highlight potential genetic markers which can used in the pig industry. However, this method, due to numerous limitations in data analysis [13] and the possibility to identify only profiles predefined transcripts/genes through hybridization [14], is eagerly replenished by ‘omic’ approaches. Omic methods integrate structural and functional genomics and relate them with phenotypic data for farm animals, including pigs [8]. They offer the comprehensive detection of the whole transcriptome, genome, proteome, etc. [15]. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) methods using high throughput platforms identify genetic and transcriptomic components by sequencing long hundred-nucleotide reads and then mapping them to the reference genome [15]. Using this approach, Piórkowska et al. [16] pinpointed a new gene cluster involved in porcine meat quality determination via regulating cell proliferation and differentiation and calcium-binding. In turn, more advanced tool PacBio sequencing platform providing ultra-long sequencing reads, allow in the more precise manner identifying gene mutations, new transcripts and gene candidates throughout the whole genome, transcriptome, or epigenome and estimating quantitative traits important for breeding as well as the genetic backgrounds of inherited diseases. However, PacBio is a very expensive method and for now it is applied mainly to improve genome reference, also included pig genome [17].
In this Special Issue, we will present the state of the art in the field of pig genetics and genomics, including the identification of gene candidates linked to important pig traits and to nutritional modifications, with the aim of collecting the most recent advances. Manuscripts focusing on high-throughput methodologies, such as RNA sequencing, ATAC-seq, MACE-seq, chip-seq and RRBS and covering other fields of pig genetics are included.

Conflicts of Interest

None of the authors has a financial or other relationship with other people or organizations that may inappropriately influence this work.

References

  1. Groth, C.G. The potential advantages of transplanting organs from pig to man: A transplant surgeon’s view. Indian J. Urol. 2007, 23, 305–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lelovas, P.P.; Kostomitsopoulos, N.G.; Xanthos, T.T. A comparative anatomic and physiologic overview of the porcine heart. J. Am. Assoc. Lab. Anim. Sci. 2014, 53, 432–438. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Mota-Rojas, D.; Orozco-Gregorio, H.; Villanueva-Garcia, D.; Bonilla-Jaime, H.; Suarez-Bonilla, X.; Hernandez-Gonzalez, R.; Roldan-Santiago, P.; Trujillo-Ortega, M.E. Foetal and neonatal energy metabolism in pigs and humans: A review. Vet. Med. 2011, 56, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Nielsen, K.L.; Hartvigsen, M.L.; Hedemann, M.S.; Lræke, H.N.; Hermansen, K.; Bach Knudsen, K.E. Similar metabolic responses in pigs and humans to breads with different contents and compositions of dietary fibers: A metabolomics study. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 99, 941–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Stachowiak, M.; Szczerbal, I.; Switonski, M. Genetics of Adiposity in Large Animal Models for Human Obesity—Studies on Pigs and Dogs. In Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; Volume 140, pp. 233–270. ISBN 9780128046159. [Google Scholar]
  6. Lunney, J.K. Advances in swine biomedical model genomics. Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2007, 3, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ensembl, GCA_000003025.6, Sscrofa11.1. Available online: https://www.ensembl.org/Sus_scrofa/Info/Index (accessed on 15 October 2021).
  8. Davoli, R.; Braglia, S. Molecular approaches in pig breeding to improve meat quality. Brief. Funct. Genom. Proteom. 2007, 6, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Tuggle, C.K.; Dekkers, J.C.M.; Reecy, J.M. Integration of structural and functional genomics. Anim. Genet. 2006, 37, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Vandenplas, J.; Windig, J.J.; Calus, M.P.L. Prediction of the reliability of genomic breeding values for crossbred performance. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2017, 49, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Lee, J.Y.; Kim, S.E.; Lee, H.T.; Hwang, J.H. Comparative analysis of immune related genes between domestic pig and germ-free minipig. Lab. Anim. Res. 2020, 36, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sun, X.; Mei, S.; Tao, H.; Wang, G.; Su, L.; Jiang, S.; Deng, C.; Xiong, Y.; Li, F. Microarray profiling for differential gene expression in PMSG-hCG stimulated preovulatory ovarian follicles of Chinese Taihu and Large White sows. BMC Genom. 2011, 12, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Lee, M.T.; Whitmore, G.A. Power and sample size for DNA microarray studies. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 3543–3570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Rao, M.S.; Van Vleet, T.R.; Ciurlionis, R.; Buck, W.R.; Mittelstadt, S.W.; Blomme, E.A.G.; Liguori, M.J. Comparison of RNA-Seq and Microarray Gene Expression Platforms for the Toxicogenomic Evaluation of Liver from Short-Term Rat Toxicity Studies. Front. Genet. 2019, 9, 636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Suravajhala, P.; Kogelman, L.J.A.; Kadarmideen, H.N. Multi-omic data integration and analysis using systems genomics approaches: Methods and applications in animal production, health and welfare. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2016, 48, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Piórkowska, K.; Żukowski, K.; Ropka-Molik, K.; Tyra, M.; Gurgul, A. A comprehensive transcriptome analysis of skeletal muscles in two Polish pig breeds differing in fat and meat quality traits. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2018, 41, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Warr, A.; Affara, N.; Aken, B.; Beiki, H.; Bickhart, D.M.; Billis, K.; Chow, W.; Eory, L.; Finlayson, H.A.; Flicek, P.; et al. An improved pig reference genome sequence to enable pig genetics and genomics research. Gigascience 2020, 9, giaa051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Piórkowska, K.; Ropka-Molik, K. Pig Genomics and Genetics. Genes 2021, 12, 1692. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12111692

AMA Style

Piórkowska K, Ropka-Molik K. Pig Genomics and Genetics. Genes. 2021; 12(11):1692. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12111692

Chicago/Turabian Style

Piórkowska, Katarzyna, and Katarzyna Ropka-Molik. 2021. "Pig Genomics and Genetics" Genes 12, no. 11: 1692. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12111692

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop