Submitted to: Animal Genetics
Publication Type: Peer reviewed journal
Publication Acceptance Date: 6/16/2007
Publication Date: 12/1/2007
Citation: Alexander, L.J., Juneja, B., Shiroma, D., Nonneman, D.J., Snelling, W.M., Fahrenkrug, S.C. 2007. Comparative and physical mapping of 112 previously reported and 105 new porcine microsatellites. Animal Genetics 38:584-594. Interpretive Summary: Much work has been performed on determining regions of the pig genome that affect Quantitative Trait Loci. Once these regions have been identified the next step is to try and identify the genes responsible for the trait whether it is a favorable or non favorable phenotype. Ideally porcine geneticists would like to be able to examine the equivalent region in the human genome a see which genes are present there. However, during evolution and divergence of species the ancestral chromosomal structure has been broken up and rearranged to varying degrees between species. Therefore, we must produce a comparative map between species be it between human and swine or mouse and swine. These maps will show which parts of the genome order have been conserved. If the order has been conserved then we can make educated guesses as to which gene(s) is responsible for the traits under study. This paper describes the mapping of 198 genomic sequences that has been conserved between humans and hogs. The information presented will greatly strengthen the human swine comparative map.
Technical Abstract: Considerable effort is now being put into mapping Quantitative Trait Loci in swine. When a QTL region has been identified the next step is to fine map the region and narrow the chromosomal location harboring the QTL. A lot of information can be obtained from the genomes of well studied species such as humans. This is called comparative genomics. Similar phenotypes, especially disease phenotypes, often have similar genetic causes. If the genetic basis has been established in humans then it may be the same in swine. However, because of rearrangements between the genomes of these two species we must generate comparative genetic maps so we can be sure that we are looking at the same gene(s). One of the limiting factors to this approach has been lack of informative of similarities and differences between the human and swine genomes. This paper greatly aids in comparison of the human and swine genomes.