4.7 Article

Comprehensive Analysis of lncRNAs and circRNAs Reveals the Metabolic Specialization in Oxidative and Glycolytic Skeletal Muscles

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20122855

关键词

long non-coding RNAs; oxidative muscle; glycolytic muscles; pig

资金

  1. Sichuan Sci & Tech Support Program (Pig Genetic Resources Exploitation and Utilization) [2016NYZ0050, SCCXTD-008]
  2. earmarked fund for China Agriculture Research System [CARS-36-05B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The biochemical and functional differences between oxidative and glycolytic muscles could affect human muscle health and animal meat quality. However, present understanding of the epigenetic regulation with respect to lncRNAs and circRNAs is rudimentary. Here, porcine oxidative and glycolytic skeletal muscles, which were at the growth curve inflection point, were sampled to survey variant global expression of lncRNAs and circRNAs using RNA-seq. A total of 4046 lncRNAs were identified, including 911 differentially expressed lncRNAs (p < 0.05). The cis-regulatory analysis identified target genes that were enriched for specific GO terms and pathways (p < 0.05), including the oxidation-reduction process, glycolytic process, and fatty acid metabolic. All these were closely related to different phenotypes between oxidative and glycolytic muscles. Additionally, 810 circRNAs were identified, of which 137 were differentially expressed (p < 0.05). Interestingly, some circRNA-miRNA-mRNA networks were found, which were closely linked to muscle fiber-type switching and mitochondria biogenesis in muscles. Furthermore, 44.69%, 39.19%, and 54.01% of differentially expressed mRNAs, lncRNAs, and circRNAs respectively were significantly enriched in pig quantitative trait loci (QTL) regions for growth and meat quality traits. This study reveals a mass of candidate lncRNAs and circRNAs involved in muscle physiological functions, which may improve understanding of muscle metabolism and development from an epigenetic perspective.

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

4.7
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