4.5 Article

Muscle transcriptome profiling in divergent phenotype swine breeds during growth using microarray and RT-PCR tools

Journal

ANIMAL GENETICS
Volume 42, Issue 5, Pages 501-509

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2010.02164.x

Keywords

growth; microarray; muscle tissue; pig breeds

Funding

  1. Italian Ministry of University and Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Using an array consisting of 10 665 70-mer oligonucleotide probes, the longissimus dorsi muscle tissue expression during growth in nine pigs belonging to Casertana (CT), an autochthonous breed characterized by slow growth and a massive accumulation of backfat, was compared with that of two cosmopolitan breeds, Large White (LW) and a crossbreed (CB; Duroc x Landrace x Large White). The results were validated by real-time PCR. All animals were of the same age and were raised under the same environmental conditions. Muscle tissues were collected at 3, 6, 9 and 11 months of age, and a total of 173 genes showed significant differential expression between CT and the cosmopolitan genetic types at 3 months of age. Time series cluster analysis indicated that the CT breed had a different pattern of gene expression compared with that of the LW and the CB. Four of the eight clusters highlighted the gene differences between CT and the other two breeds, which were further supported by statistical analyses: clusters 4 and 5 contained a total of 71 genes that were underexpressed at 3 months of age, and cluster 3 and cluster 7 included 28 and 42 genes respectively that were overexpressed at 3 months of age. As expected, differentially expressed genes belonged to the category of genes coding for contractile fibres and transcription factors involved in muscle development and differentiation. These findings highlight muscle expression genes during pig growth and are useful to understand the genetic meaning of the different developmental rates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available