ArticlePLoS genetics2024
Large scale sequence-based screen for recessive variants allows for identification and monitoring of rare deleterious variants in pigs.
Article in PLoS genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic partitioning and functional dissection of inbreeding depression for stature in Brown Swiss cattle.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026Article
- Predicting the functional impact of single nucleotide variants in Drosophila melanogaster with FlyCADD.Genetics · 2026Article
- Multi-omics integration reveals Chr1 associated QTL mediating backfat thickness in pigs.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Genome-Wide Association Study for Individual Primal Cut Quality Traits in Canadian Commercial Crossbred Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Genome-Wide Association Study for Belly Traits in Canadian Commercial Crossbred Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Most deleterious variants are recessive and segregate at relatively low frequency. Therefore, high sample sizes are required to identify these variants. In this study we report a large-scale sequence based genome-wide association study (GWAS) in pigs, with a total of 120,000 Large White and 80,000 Synthetic breed animals imputed to sequence using a reference population of approximately 1,100 whole genome sequenced pigs. We imputed over 20 million variants with high accuracies (R2>0.9) even for low frequency variants (1-5% minor allele frequency). This sequence-based analysis revealed a total of 14 additive and 9 non-additive significant quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for growth rate and backfat thickness. With the non-additive (recessive) model, we identified a deleterious missense SNP in the CDHR2 gene reducing growth rate and backfat in homozygous Large White animals. For the Synthetic breed, we revealed a QTL on chromosome 15 with a frameshift variant in the OBSL1 gene. This QTL has a major impact on both growth rate and backfat, resembling human 3M-syndrome 2 which is related to the same gene. With the additive model, we confirmed known QTLs on chromosomes 1 and 5 for both breeds, including variants in the MC4R and CCND2 genes. On chromosome 1, we disentangled a complex QTL region with multiple variants affecting both traits, harboring 4 independent QTLs in the span of 5 Mb. Together we present a large scale sequence-based association study that provides a key resource to scan for novel variants at high resolution for breeding and to further reduce the frequency of deleterious alleles at an early stage in the breeding program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.