Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40428356›Full record

ReviewGenes2025

Genetic Contributions to Aggressive Behaviour in Pigs: A Comprehensive Review.

Anastasiya Kazantseva, Airat Bilyalov, Nikita Filatov, Stepan Perepechenov, Oleg Gusev

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Pig Genome Editing for Agriculture: Achievements and Challenges.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
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

5 authors.

Anastasiya KazantsevaInstitute of Biochemistry and Genetics, Ufa Federal Research Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, 450054 Ufa, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-3744-8058
Airat BilyalovInstitute of Biochemistry and Genetics, Ufa Federal Research Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, 450054 Ufa, Russia.ORCID 0000-0002-8888-8395
Nikita FilatovInstitute of Biochemistry and Genetics, Ufa Federal Research Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, 450054 Ufa, Russia.ORCID 0009-0000-9179-515X
Stepan PerepechenovInstitute of Fundamental Medicine and Biology, Kazan Federal University, 420008 Kazan, Russia.ORCID 0009-0005-7637-2518
Oleg GusevInstitute of Biochemistry and Genetics, Ufa Federal Research Centre of Russian Academy of Sciences, 450054 Ufa, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aggressive behaviour in pigs poses significant challenges to animal welfare, production efficiency, and economic performance in the pork industry. This review explores the multifaceted causes of pig aggression, focusing on genetic, environmental, and physiological factors. Aggression in pigs is categorized into social, maternal, fear-induced, play, and redirected aggression, with early-life hierarchies and environmental stressors playing critical roles. Physiological markers, such as elevated cortisol and reduced serotonin levels, are closely linked to aggressive behaviour, while dietary interventions, including tryptophan supplementation, have shown promise in mitigating aggression. Environmental factors, such as overcrowding, noise, and heat stress, exacerbate aggressive tendencies, whereas enrichment strategies, like music and improved housing conditions, can reduce stress and aggression. Genome-wide analyses have pinpointed specific polymorphisms in neurotransmitter genes (

Indexed as

AggressionBehavior, AnimalAnimalsBreedingGenome-Wide Association StudySwineanimal welfaregenetic markers of aggressiongenome-wide association studiespig aggression

Identifiers

PMID40428356
PMCPMC12111624

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.