4.1 Article

Distribution of H-FABP and ACSL4 gene polymorphisms and their associations with intramuscular fat content and backfat thickness in different pig populations

期刊

GENETICS AND MOLECULAR RESEARCH
卷 13, 期 3, 页码 6759-6772

出版社

FUNPEC-EDITORA
DOI: 10.4238/2014.August.28.20

关键词

Pig; H-FABP; ACSL4; Polymorphism; Intramuscular fat content; Backfat thickness

资金

  1. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT13083]
  2. Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security of the People's Republic of China [2013]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Here, we analyzed the distribution of H-FABP/(HinfI, MspI, and HaeIII) and ACSL4/RsaI polymorphisms, and the associations of these 4 polymorphic loci with intramuscular fat (IMF) content and backfat thickness (BFT) in Yanan, Jinhua, Duroc, Landrace, Yorkshire, and Duroc x (Landrace x Yorkshire) (DLY) pigs. H-FABP/HinfI polymorphisms were present in all the 6 populations. At the ACSL4/RsaI locus, sows had 3 genotypes, whereas boars only had haplotype A or G, in Duroc, Landrace, Yorkshire, and DLY pigs. H-FABP/(MspI and HaeIII) and ACSL4/RsaI polymorphisms were absent in Yanan and Jinhua pigs. Linkage disequilibrium analysis indicated that the 3 loci (HinfI, MspI, and HaeIII) were separated. Association analysis showed that the H-FABP/HinfI locus significantly affected IMF content in DLY (P < 0.05) and Yanan (P < 0.001) pigs. The highest IMF content was recorded in the adH haplotype of the 3 H-FABP polymorphic loci (2.59%, P < 0.05) in DLY pigs. At the ACSL4/RsaI locus, higher IMF content was recorded for sows with a GG genotype or boars with a G haplotype compared to those with an AA genotype (2.53 vs 2.10%, P < 0.05) or A haplotype (2.48 vs 1.73%, P < 0.01) in DLY pigs. Significant differences were not obtained among these 4 polymorphic loci and BFT (P > 0.05). The results indicate that H-FABP and ACSL4 genes might serve as markers to improve IMF content (but not BFT) in the pig breeding system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据