Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:24:17.527Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relationship between individual DNA methylation percentage differences and carcass traits in pigs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Jiang Cao-De ,
Deng Chang-Yan  and
Xiong Yuan-Zhu
Jiang Cao-De
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Graze and Herbivore of Chongqing, Southwest Agricultural University, Chongqin 400716, China
Deng Chang-Yan*
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Pig Genetics and Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China
Xiong Yuan-Zhu
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Pig Genetics and Breeding, Ministry of Agriculture, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan 430070, China
*
*Corresponding author: Email: dengchy@mail.hzau.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In order to investigate the effects of DNA methylation on pig carcass traits, the methylation-sensitive amplified polymorphism technique (MSAP) was adopted to amplify DNA from blood samples taken from 77 F1 hybrids of Large White×Meishan crosses. A total of 15 carcass traits were tested. Results showed that means of internal fat rate (IFR), lean meat percentage (LMP) and ratio of lean meat versus fat meat (RLF) were significantly different (P<0.05) among five levels of general individual methylation difference (GIMDP); means of carcass weight (CW), IFR, backfat thickness at buttock (BFT3), average backfat thickness (ABF), carcass length to the first rib (CLR) and carcass length to the first neck vertebra (CLN) were also significantly different (P<0.05) among five levels of special individual methylation percentage difference (SIMDP), while means of 15 carcass traits were not significantly different (P>0.05) among five levels of neutral individual methylation percentage difference (NIMDP). Of all traits that were significantly affected by SIMPD, CW, ABF and BFT3 increased, IFR and backfat thickness at shoulder (BFT1) decreased, while CLR and bone percentage (BP) fluctuated with the SIMDP increase. The regressions between SIMDP and IFR, BFT1, BFT3 and ABF were significant (P<0.05). It is concluded that DNA methylation can be applied as a marker to related studies in pigs; positive methylation sites were superior to negative methylation sites in predicting hybrid performance, and methylation differences should be maintained at specific levels for different traits to improve the productivity of pigs.

Keywords

carcass traitindividual DNA methylation percentage differencemethylation-sensitive amplified polymorphism (MSAPpig
Type
Research Article
Information
Chinese Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , December 2005 , pp. 187 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © China Agricultural University and Cambridge University Press 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boppenmeier, J, Melchenger, AE, Brunklaus-Jung, E, Geiger, HH and Herrmann, RG (1992) Genetic diversity for RFLPs in European maize inbreds: I. Relation to performance of Flint×Dent crosses for forage traits. Crop Science 32: 895–902.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, AB (1910) The Mendelian theory of heredity and the augmentation of vigor. Science 32: 627–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, DN and Krawczak, M (1989) Cytosine methylation and the fate of CpG dinucleotides in vertebrate genomes. Hum an Genetics 83: 181–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delgado, S, Gomez, M, Bird, A and Antequer, F (1998) Initiation of DNA replication at CpG islands in mammalian chromosomes. EMBO Journal 17(8): 2426–2435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
East, EM (1936) Heterosis. Genetics 21: 375–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jiang, CD, Deng, CY and Xiong, YZ (2004a) Patterns of cytosine methylation in parental lines and their hybrids of Large White and Meishan reciprocal crosses. Agricultural Sciences in China 3(1): 57–62.Google Scholar
Jiang, CD, Deng, CY and Xiong, YZ (2004b) Relationship between DNA methylation and growth traits in pig. Animal Biotechnology Bulletion 9(1): 67–74.Google Scholar
Jiang, CD, Deng, CY and Xiong, YZ (2005) Differences of cytosine methylation in parental lines and hybrid F1 of Large White×Meishan and their effects on F1 performance. Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology 13(1): 46–51.Google Scholar
Jiang, XP (2003) Study on associative overdominance for piglet growth and meat quality traits. PhD thesis, Huazhong Agricultural University.Google Scholar
Jiang, XP, Xiong, YZ, Liu, GQ, Deng, CY and Qu, YC (2003) Effects of individual gene heterosity on growth traits in swine. Acta Genetica Sinica 30(5): 431–436.Google Scholar
Jones, DF (1917) Dominance of linked factors as a means of accounting for heteroses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 3: 310–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, F, Gundersen, G, Lopez, R and Prydz, H (1992) CpG islands as gene markers in the human genome. Genomics 13: 1095–1107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McClelland, M, Nelson, M and Raschke, E (1994) Effect of site-specific modification on restriction endonucleases and DNA modification methyltransferases. Nucleic Acids Research 22: 3640–3659.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElroy, TC, Presley, ML and Diehl, WJ (1999) Genotypes of multiple allozyme loci interact with an experimental environment to affect survivorship in earthworms (Eisenia andrei). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 123(A) 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchinger, AR, Lee, M, Lamkey, KR, Hallauer, AR and Woodman, WL (1990) Genetic diversity from restriction fragment length polymorphisms and heterosis for two diallel sets of maize inbreds. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 80: 488–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melchinger, AE, Boppenmeier, J, Dhillon, BS, Pollmer, WG and Herrmann, RG (1992) Genetic diversity for RFLPs in European maize inbreds:II. relation to performance of hybrids within versus between heterotic groups for forage traits. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 84: 672–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ng, HH and Bird, A (1999) DNA methylation and chromatin modification. Current Opinion in Genetic Development 9: 158–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reyna-López, GE, Simpson, J, Ruiz-Herrera, J (1997) Differences in DNA methylation patterns are detectable during the dimorphic transition of fungi by amplification of restriction polymorphisms. Molecular and General Genetics 253: 703–710.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sambrook, J and Russell, DW (1989) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 2nd edn. Cold Spring Harbor NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.Google Scholar
Shull, CH (1908) The composition of field maize. American Breeding Association 4: 296–301.Google Scholar
Stuber, CW (1994) Heterosis in plant breeding. Plant Breeding Review 12: 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vos, P, Hogers, R, Bleeker, M et al. , (1995) AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Research 23: 4407–4414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xie, XD, Ni, ZF, Meng, FR, Wu, LM, Wang, ZK and Sun, QX (2003) Relationship between differences of gene expression in early developing seeds of hybrid versus parents and heterosis in wheat. Acta Genetica Sinica 30(3): 260–266.Google ScholarPubMed
Xiong, YZ (1999) Introduction to Breeding Pig Measurement. Bejing: China Agricultural Press.Google Scholar
Xiong, LZ, Xu, CG, Saghai Maroof, MA (1999) Patterns of cytosine methylation in an elite rice hybrid and its parental lines detected by a methylation-sensitive amplification polymorphism technique. Molecular General Genetics 261: 439–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, GL, Bestor, TJ, Bourc'his, D et al. , (1999) Chromosome instability and immunodeficiency syndrome caused by mutations in DNA methyltransferase gene. Nature 402: 187–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhang, Q, Zhou, ZQ, Yang, GP et al. , (1996) Molecular marker heterozygosity and hybrid performance in Indica and Japonica rice. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 93: 1218–1224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed