It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The functional annotation of livestock genomes is crucial for understanding the molecular mechanisms that underpin complex traits of economic importance, adaptive evolution and comparative genomics. Here, we provide the most comprehensive catalogue to date of regulatory elements in the pig (Sus scrofa) by integrating 223 epigenomic and transcriptomic data sets, representing 14 biologically important tissues. We systematically describe the dynamic epigenetic landscape across tissues by functionally annotating 15 different chromatin states and defining their tissue-specific regulatory activities. We demonstrate that genomic variants associated with complex traits and adaptive evolution in pig are significantly enriched in active promoters and enhancers. Furthermore, we reveal distinct tissue-specific regulatory selection between Asian and European pig domestication processes. Compared with human and mouse epigenomes, we show that porcine regulatory elements are more conserved in DNA sequence, under both rapid and slow evolution, than those under neutral evolution across pig, mouse, and human. Finally, we provide biological insights on tissue-specific regulatory conservation, and by integrating 47 human genome-wide association studies, we demonstrate that, depending on the traits, mouse or pig might be more appropriate biomedical models for different complex traits and diseases.
Annotating functional elements of the genome helps the interpretation of genetic variation. Here, the authors compile functional genomics data for the pig genome over 14 tissues with 15 different chromatin states, integrate the data with WGS and GWAS data, and compare conservation of regulatory elements across mouse and human tissues.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details












1 University of California, Davis, Department of Animal Science, Davis, USA (GRID:grid.27860.3b) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 9684)
2 MRC Human Genetics Unit at the Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK (GRID:grid.4305.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7988)
3 Agricultural Genome Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Shenzhen, China (GRID:grid.410727.7) (ISNI:0000 0001 0526 1937)
4 Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark (GRID:grid.7048.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 1956 2722)
5 Leibniz-Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Dummerstorf, Germany (GRID:grid.418188.c) (ISNI:0000 0000 9049 5051)
6 Animal Genetics, Bioinformatics and Breeding, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederikgsberg C, Denmark (GRID:grid.5254.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 0674 042X)
7 Michigan State University, Department of Animal Science, East Lansing, USA (GRID:grid.17088.36) (ISNI:0000 0001 2150 1785)
8 Iowa State University, Department of Animal Science, Ames, USA (GRID:grid.34421.30) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 7312)