| Literature DB >> 25049549 |
Abstract
To investigate the influence of the prolactin receptor 3 (PRLR3) gene and the retinol-binding protein 4 (RBP4) gene on the production traits of swine, genotyping was performed on 156 and 141 Berkshire pigs, respectively, that were carefully selected for economic traits. The frequencies of allele A in the PRLR3 locus and allele B in the RBP4 locus were 0.50 and 0.42, respectively. Neither locus was in the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. After a genotype was assigned to the individuals whose parents had the homozygous genotype, a statistical analysis was conducted for 291 pigs. The animals with the PRLR3 and RBP4 genotypes included 182 and 227 head, respectively. Even though the genotypic effects of PRLR3 (p<0.05) and RBP4 (p<0.01) had a significant influence on the pigs' back fat thickness, the interaction of both genes was not highly significant in terms of the back fat thickness (p = 0.1235). While the estimated epistasis effects of aaBB and aaBb decreased the back fat thickness and reduced the growth rate, the effects of AAbb and aabb increased the growth rate. Despite the insignificant difference in the PRLR genotypes in terms of the days to 90 kg and the average daily gain, the back fat thickness showed a significant difference (p<0.05), and the additive effect of allele A and the dominant effect of the hetero-genotype were -0.377 and 1.206 mm, respectively. The RBP4 genotypes had a very significant effect (p<0.01) on the back fat thickness, the days to 90 kg, and the average daily gain. The additive effects of allele B of the RBP4 locus on the back fat thickness, the days to 90 kg, and the average daily gain were 0.70 mm, -1.3 days and 6.2 g, respectively. Moreover, the dominant effects of the heterozygote for those traits were 0.63 mm, 9.9 days and -45.0 g, respectively. Allele A of the PRLR3 locus favorably influenced the back fat thickness, the days to 90 kg of the body weight, and the average daily gain and its dominant effect unfavorably influenced those traits. Allele B of RBP4 showed an incremental growth rate and back fat thickness, which could lower the lean meat percentage in the carcass. The RBP4 hetero-genotype negatively affected the pork production. These results strongly imply that the selection of allele A of PRLR3 and allele B of RBP4 would produce highly productive pigs in the Berkshire breed. Careful selection of allele B of RBP4 is required because of the increase in the back fat thickness.Entities:
Keywords: Additive Effect; Candidate Gene; Production Traits; Prolactin Receptor; Retinol-binding Protein
Year: 2012 PMID: 25049549 PMCID: PMC4093128 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2011.11216
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Classification of animals by PRLR3 and RBP4 genotype
|
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Total | |||||||
| Genotyped | 22 (36) | 101 (72) | 21 (36) | 144 | 34 (24) | 54 (74) | 68 (58) | 156 |
| Assigned | 0 | 160 | 35 | 195 | 62 | 118 | 138 | 318 |
| Total | 22 | 261 | 56 | 339 | 96 | 172 | 206 | 474 |
| Unknown | 3 | 77 | 39 | 119 | 57 | 76 | 121 | 254 |
The figures in the parenthesis represent the expected numbers of animals under the Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium.
Represents the animals genotyped by parent information.
Represents the numbers of animals which do not have information of genotype in other gene.
Distribution of production traits by genotype, birth year and gender
| Birth year | Gender | Parity | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| 2003 | 35 | Female | 203 | 1 | 93 | 14 | 41 | ||
| 2004 | 62 | Male | 72 | 2 | 62 | 131 | 75 | ||
| 2005 | 124 | Castrated | 16 | 3 | 32 | 37 | 111 | ||
| 2006 | 70 | 4 | 25 | ||||||
| 5 | 25 | ||||||||
| 6 | 25 | ||||||||
| 7 | 16 | ||||||||
| ≥8 | 13 | ||||||||
| Total | 291 | 291 | 291 | 182 | 227 | ||||
Least square means of back fat thickness, days to 90 kg and average daily gain
| Gender | Parity | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| Back fat thickness (mm) | Days to 90 kg | Average daily gain (g) | Back fat thickness (mm) | Days to 90 kg | Average daily gain (g) | ||
| Female | 17.034±0.282 | 156.75±1.63 | 575.4±6.6 | 1 | 14.809±0.432 | 147.84±2.46 | 619.1±10.3 |
| Male | 16.577±0.388 | 150.00±2.25 | 611.4±9.1 | 2 | 17.445±0.479 | 149.60±2.73 | 608.0±11.4 |
| Castrated | 18.070±0.755 | 148.65±4.38 | 614.3±17.7 | 3 | 17.012±0.693 | 149.51±3.95 | 608.9±16.5 |
| 4 | 16.949±0.964 | 175.87±5.49 | 510.6±22.9 | ||||
| 5 | 16.613±1.009 | 148.61±5.75 | 608.9±24.0 | ||||
| 6 | 14.887±1.453 | 155.75±8.28 | 577.5±34.6 | ||||
| 7 | 16.242±1.301 | 178.48±7.41 | 503.5±30.9 | ||||
| ≥8 | 22.477±1.997 | 149.50±11.38 | 601.0±47.5 | ||||
Analysis of variance for days to 90 kg
| Source | df | MS | F value | df | MS | F | df | MS | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Year | 3 | 5241.1 | 25.94 | 3 | 2,641.6 | 13.09 | 3 | 1689.0 | 8.85 |
| Gender | 2 | 753.3 | 3.73 | 2 | 606.0 | 3.00 | 2 | 380.5 | 1.99 |
| Parity | 7 | 1,060.0 | 5.25 | 8 | 293.4 | 1.45 | 6 | 459.1 | 2.41 |
| 2 | 118.5 | 0.59 | |||||||
| 2 | 1,622.2 | 8.04 | |||||||
| 8 | 539.8 | 2.83 | |||||||
| Error | 167 | 202.1 | 211 | 201.8 | 98 | 190.8 | |||
p<0.01;
p<0.05;
p<0.10;
p<0.25.
Analysis of variance for average daily gain
| Source | df | MS | F | df | MS | F | df | MS | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Year | 3 | 104,461.0 | 30.71 | 3 | 49,335.9 | 14.86 | 3 | 33,061.7 | 10.57 |
| Gender | 2 | 22,264.4 | 6.55 | 2 | 15,881.9 | 4.79 | 2 | 10,159.6 | 3.25 |
| Parity | 7 | 13,782.0 | 4.05 | 8 | 5,880.7 | 1.77 | 6 | 6,707.7 | 2.14 |
| 2 | 2,066.7 | 0.61 | |||||||
| 2 | 33,314.9 | 10.04 | |||||||
| 8 | 11,157.2 | 3.57 | |||||||
| Error | 167 | 3,401.3 | 211 | 3,319.0 | 98 | 3,128.3 | |||
p<0.01;
p<0.05;
p<0.10.
Analysis of variance for back fat thickness
| Source | df | MS | F | df | MS | F | df | MS | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| Year | 3 | 228.93 | 48.23 | 3 | 192.75 | 28.20 | 3 | 141.74 | 25.84 |
| Gender | 2 | 40.50 | 8.53 | 2 | 41.44 | 6.06 | 2 | 34.19 | 6.23 |
| Parity | 7 | 34.14 | 7.19 | 8 | 16.67 | 2.44 | 6 | 12.52 | 2.28 |
| 2 | 20.03 | 4.22 | |||||||
| 2 | 35.71 | 5.23 | |||||||
| 8 | 8.99 | 1.64 | |||||||
| Error | 167 | 4.75 | 211 | 6.83 | 98 | 5.48 | |||
p<0.01;
p<0.05;
p<0.25.
Additive and dominant (d) genetic effects of PRLR3 and RBP4 genes in production traits1
| Back fat thickness (mm) | Days to 90 kg | Average daily gain (g) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15.221±0.729 | 150.36±4.75 | 609.4±19.5 | ||
| 16.803±0.398 | 154.66±2.59 | 591.3±10.7 | ||
| 15.974±0.546 | 154.90±3.56 | 590.9±14.6 | ||
| −0.753 | −4.54 | 18.5 | ||
| d | 1.206 | 2.03 | −8.9 | |
| 17.832±0.580 | 145.12±3.15 | 628.1±12.8 | ||
| 17.763±0.523 | 156.30±2.84 | 576.9±11.5 | ||
| 16.423±0.534 | 147.63±2.90 | 615.7±11.8 | ||
| 1.409 | −2.51 | 12.4 | ||
| d | 0.634 | 9.93 | −45.0 |
All estimates of least square means were highly significant (p<0.0001).
Epistatic effects of PRLR3/RBP4 genes1
| Traits | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Back fat thickness (mm) | −0.490 | 1.523 | −0.530 | |
| 0.605 | 0.235 | 0.189 | ||
| −1.516 | −1.540 | 1.525 | ||
| Days to 90 kg | 5.267 | 1.259 | −8.167 | |
| −4.146 | −2.170 | 1.454 | ||
| 9.328 | 2.928 | −5.754 | ||
| Average daily gain (g) | −24.399 | −8.271 | 41.981 | |
| 19.258 | 10.360 | −7.537 | ||
| −44.412 | −14.800 | 27.820 | ||
All estimates of least square means for obtaining epistatic effects were highly significant (p<0.0001).