4.1 Article

Muscle-fibre types in porcine longissimus muscle of different genotypes and their association with the status of energy metabolism

期刊

ANIMAL PRODUCTION SCIENCE
卷 52, 期 5, 页码 305-312

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/AN11185

关键词

energy metabolism; pig genotypes; muscle-fibre types; myosin heavy chain

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31172220]
  2. Modern Agro-industry Technology Research System of China [CARS-36]
  3. Science and Technology Projects in Zhejiang Province of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To study the difference in muscle-fibre types in porcine muscle among different genotypes and its association with energy metabolism, composition of myosin heavy chain (MyHC) mRNA and energy metabolism indices were determined in the longissimus muscle (LM). Pig breeds included Jinhua (JHP), Zhongbai (ZBP), Duroc x Zhongbai cross (DZP) and Duroc x Yorkshire x Landrace cross (DYL). JHP pigs were found to have the highest proportions of MyHC I, IIa and IIx mRNA (P < 0.05), creatine kinase (CK) activity (P < 0.05) and the lowest glycolytic potential (GP) compared with the other genotypes. The proportions of MyHC I and IIa mRNA increased in the order of DYL < DZP < ZBP < JHP, whereas the trend was opposite for MyHC IIb mRNA. The proportions of MyHC I, IIa and IIx mRNA were positively correlated with CK activity and the turnover ratio of creatine phosphate (CP) (P < 0.01), and negatively correlated with GP, glucose-6-phosphate (G-6-P) and lactate (LA) contents (P < 0.01), with the trends being opposite for MyHC IIb mRNA. The results indicate that muscle-fibre type in porcine LM is influenced by the genetic background of pigs. For example, JHP pigs had more of Types I, IIa and IIx fibres than did other genotypes. Proportions of Types I, IIa and IIx fibres were positively correlated with CK reaction (ATP-CP) capacity and negatively correlated with GP. These data provide some evidence for exploring the effective mechanism of muscle-fibre type on pork quality.

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