4.6 Article

Association analysis of mitochondrial genome polymorphisms with backfat thickness in pigs

Journal

ANIMAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10495398.2023.2272172

Keywords

Backfat thickness; mitochondrial DNA; polymorphism; swine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study reveals an association between mtDNA polymorphisms and backfat thickness (BFT) in pigs. The 48 polymorphic sites in mtDNA generated 22 haplotypes, which clustered into 4 haplogroups. HG1 showed a lower BFT value compared to other haplogroups, and H4 in HG1 exhibited the lowest BFT of all analyzed haplotypes.
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variations and associated effects on economic traits have been widely reported in farm animals, as these genetic polymorphisms can affect the efficiency of energy production and cell metabolism. In studies related to metabolism, the deposition of fat was highly correlated with mitochondria. However, the effect of mtDNA polymorphisms on porcine backfat thickness (BFT) remained unclear. In this study, 243 pigs were collected to analyse the relationship between BFT and mtDNA polymorphisms. There were considerable differences in BFT, ranging from 5 mm to 18 mm. MtDNA D-loop sequencing discovered 48 polymorphic sites. Association analysis revealed that 30 variations were associated with BFT (P < 0.05). The polymorphism m.794A > G showed the maximum difference in BFT between A and G carriers, which differed at similar to 2.5 mm (P < 0.001). The 48 polymorphic sites generated 22 haplotypes (H1-H22), which clustered into 4 haplogroups (HG1-HG4). HG1 had a lower BFT value than other three haplogroups (P < 0.01), whereas H4 in HG1 exhibited the lowest BFT of all haplotypes analyzed (P < 0.01). The results of this study highlight an association between mtDNA polymorphisms and BFT, and suggest the potential application of mtDNA in pig molecular breeding practices.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available