Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34615879›Full record

ArticleNature communications2021

Pig genome functional annotation enhances the biological interpretation of complex traits and human disease.

Zhangyuan Pan, Yuelin Yao, Hongwei Yin, Zexi Cai, Ying Wang, Lijing Bai, Colin Kern, Michelle Halstead, Ganrea Chanthavixay, Nares Trakooljul and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 129 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing papers in PubMed
48.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

129 citing papers in PubMed, 237 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Meta-GWAS of Pig Semen Quality Traits Reveals Conserved Genes Regulating Mammalian Fertility.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  20. Article

69 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Zhangyuan Pan *Department of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Yuelin Yao *MRC Human Genetics Unit at the Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK.
Hongwei YinAgricultural Genome Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 518120, Shenzhen, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9373-5166
Zexi CaiCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Aarhus University, Tjele, 8300, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9579-3415
Ying WangDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Lijing BaiAgricultural Genome Institute at Shenzhen, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, 518120, Shenzhen, China.
Colin KernDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3249-6405
Michelle HalsteadDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0168-2704
Ganrea ChanthavixayDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Nares TrakooljulLeibniz-Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Dummerstorf, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3214-2498
Klaus WimmersLeibniz-Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Dummerstorf, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9523-6790
Goutam SahanaCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Aarhus University, Tjele, 8300, Denmark.
Guosheng SuCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Aarhus University, Tjele, 8300, Denmark.
Mogens Sandø LundCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Aarhus University, Tjele, 8300, Denmark.
Merete FredholmAnimal Genetics, Bioinformatics and Breeding, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederikgsberg C, 1870, Denmark.
Peter Karlskov-MortensenAnimal Genetics, Bioinformatics and Breeding, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Frederikgsberg C, 1870, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2491-2763
Catherine W ErnstDepartment of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2833-0995
Pablo RossDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3972-3754
Christopher K TuggleDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4229-5316
Lingzhao FangMRC Human Genetics Unit at the Institute of Genetics and Molecular Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH4 2XU, UK. Lingzhao.fang@igmm.ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1103-3679
Huaijun ZhouDepartment of Animal Science, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA. hzhou@ucdavis.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6023-9521
University of California, Davis · USAarhus University · DKAgricultural Genomics Institute at Shenzhen · CNInstitute of Genetics and Cancer · GBResearch Institute for Farm Animal Biology (FBN) · DEUniversity of Copenhagen · DKIowa State University · USMichigan State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

GenomeGenome-Wide Association StudyMultifactorial InheritanceAnimalsBase SequenceBreedingChromatinDNA MethylationEpigenomeEvolution, MolecularFemaleGene Expression RegulationGenomicsHumansMaleMiceChromatin

Identifiers

PMID34615879
PMCPMC8494738
OpenAlexW3204611436

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.