| Literature DB >> 30223793 |
Maria Ballester1, Marcel Amills2, Olga González-Rodríguez3, Tainã F Cardoso2, Mariam Pascual3, Rayner González-Prendes2, Núria Panella-Riera4, Isabel Díaz4, Joan Tibau5, Raquel Quintanilla6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The molecular basis of compensatory growth in monogastric animals has not yet been fully explored. Herewith, in this study we aim to determine changes in the pig skeletal muscle transcriptome profile during compensatory growth following a feed restriction period. A RNA-Seq experiment was performed with a total of 24 females belonging to a Duroc commercial line. Half of the animals received either a restricted (RE) or ad libitum (AL) diet during the first fattening period (60-125 d of age). After that, all gilts were fed ad libitum for a further ~30 d until the age of ~155 d, when animals were slaughtered and samples of gluteus medius muscle were harvested to perform RNA-Seq analyses and intramuscular fat content determination.Entities:
Keywords: AMPK; Autophagy; Compensatory growth; Energy homeostasis; Feed restriction; Pig; RNA-Seq; Skeletal muscle
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30223793 PMCID: PMC6142327 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-018-5071-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Mean phenotypic values for growth, fatness, carcass and intramuscular fat traits of the two groups of pig females analysed, fed ad libitum (AL group) and fed a restricted diet (RE group), plus the significance of dietary treatment effect in a one way ANOVA
| AL | RE | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| GROWTH from 70 to 125 d of age | |||
| Average daily gain (kg) | 0.88 | 0.55 | <.0001 *** |
| Daily feed intake (kg) | 2.05 | 1.26 | <.0001 *** |
| Food conversion ratio (kg intake / kg gain) | 2.33 | 2.27 | 0.2863 n.s. |
| Back fat gain from 85 to 125 d (mm) | 5.25 | 2.75 | <.0001 *** |
| GROWTH from 126 to 155 d of age | |||
| Average daily gain (kg) | 0.97 | 1.14 | 0.0046 ** |
| Daily feed intake (kg) | 2.84 | 2.88 | 0.8060 n.s. |
| Food conversion ratio (kg intake / kg gain) | 2.93 | 2.53 | 0.0005 *** |
| Back fat gain (mm) | 5.00 | 6.21 | 0.0569 + |
| CARCASS TRAITS (~ 161 d of age) | |||
| Live weight before slaughter (kg) | 101.10 | 89.10 | <.0001 *** |
| Killing out (%) | 80.03 | 79.03 | 0.0640 + |
| Chilling losses (%) | 3.01 | 3.59 | 0.0015 ** |
| Back fat thickness between 3rd and 4th ribs (Fat-O-Meater II) (mm) | 25.52 | 22.28 | 0.0243 * |
| Loin thickness between 3rd and 4th ribs (Fat-O-Meater II) (mm) | 44.13 | 40.30 | 0.0239 * |
| Lean meat percentage (FOM 2) | 50.16 | 52.33 | 0.0851 + |
| INTRAMUSCULAR FAT TRAITS ( | |||
| Intramuscular fat content (%) | 3.733 | 3.120 | 0.0542 + |
| Cholesterol content (dg/kg) | 58.082 | 58.193 | 0.9695 n.s. |
| Myristic acid (C14:0) content (%) | 1.348 | 1.291 | 0.3641 n.s. |
| Palmitic acid (C16:0) content (%) | 23.844 | 23.326 | 0.1258 n.s. |
| Palmitoleic acid (C16:1n7) content (%) | 3.003 | 2.662 | 0.0164 * |
| Stearic acid (C18:0) content (%) | 13.713 | 13.926 | 0.6280 n.s. |
| Oleic acid (C18:1n9) content (%) | 40.100 | 38.454 | 0.0806 + |
| Cis-vaccenic acid (C18:1n7) content (%) | 3.960 | 3.853 | 0.1893 n.s. |
| Linoleic acid (C18:2n6) content (%) | 8.531 | 10.185 | 0.0110 * |
| Arachidonic acid (C20:4n6) content (%) | 1.440 | 1.874 | 0.0630 + |
| Saturated Fatty Acids content (SFA) (%) | 39.403 | 38.991 | 0.5857 n.s. |
| Monounsaturated fatty acids content (MUFA) (%) | 49.249 | 47.156 | 0.0529 + |
| Polyunsaturated fatty acids content (PUFA) (%) | 11.347 | 13.818 | 0.0149 * |
| Ratio PUFA/SFA | 0.288 | 0.356 | 0.0158 * |
| Omega 6 (ω6) content | 8.851 | 10.832 | 0.0089 ** |
| Omega 3 (ω3) content | 0.933 | 1.270 | 0.1762 n.s. |
| Ratio ω6/ ω3 | 9.935 | 9.816 | 0.9016 n.s. |
| Sum of trans FA | 0.804 | 0.799 | 0.9678 n.s. |
aSignificant: *** p < 0.0001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; Suggestive: + p < 0.1; n.s.: non-significant
Fig. 1Evolution of live weight of animals subjected to feed restriction from 70 to 125 d of age (RE animals) and fed ad libitum (AL animals) across the controlled fattening period till sacrifice (155 d of age)
Fig. 2Multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot based on the log-fold-changes between each pair of RNA samples. Orange color indicates AL sows and blue color indicates RE sows
Top six canonical pathways most significantly (P-value< 0.001) enriched by genes differentially expressed between RE and AL groups
| Canonical Pathway | -log10( | Ratio | z-score | Moleculesa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| G-Protein Coupled Receptor Signaling | 4.53E00 | 2.57E-02 | – | |
| AMPK Signaling | 4.45E00 | 3.17E-02 | −1.633 | |
| Relaxin Signaling | 3.85E00 | 3.29E-02 | – | |
| ERK/MAPK Signaling | 3.31E00 | 2.51E-02 | −1.342 | |
| Phagosome Formation | 3.16E00 | 3.28E-02 | – | |
| Type II Diabetes Mellitus Signaling | 3.10E + 00 | 3.15E-02 | −1.000 |
aThe bold italic-lettered genes were those down-regulated in the RE group relative to the AL group
Top five networks enriched by genes differentially expressed between RE and AL groups. Principal functions represented in those biological networks are indicated in Additional file 5: Table S5
| Associated Network functions | Score | Molecules |
|---|---|---|
| Carbohydrate Metabolism, Cardiovascular System Development and Function, Cellular Development | 44 | 20 |
| Cell Cycle, Cell Death and Survival, Glomerular Injury | 28 | 14 |
| Cancer, Organismal Injury and Abnormalities, Renal and Urological Disease | 28 | 14 |
| Lipid Metabolism, Small Molecule Biochemistry, Carbohydrate Metabolism | 23 | 12 |
| Auditory Disease, Hereditary Disorder, Neurological Disease | 23 | 12 |
Fig. 3Plot of the biological network most significantly enriched by the list of genes differently expressed between animals subjected and not subjected to a feed restriction period: Carbohydrate Metabolism, Cardiovascular System Development and Function, Cellular Development. The shape of nodes indicates the functional classes of the gene products. The node color indicates the degree of expression: (red) up-regulated and (green) down-regulated in the RE group relative to the AL group