Epistatic QTL pairs associated with meat quality and carcass composition traits in a porcine Duroc × Pietrain population
© Große-Brinkhaus et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
Received: 25 January 2010
Accepted: 26 October 2010
Published: 26 October 2010
Quantitative trait loci (QTL) analyses in pig have revealed numerous individual QTL affecting growth, carcass composition, reproduction and meat quality, indicating a complex genetic architecture. In general, statistical QTL models consider only additive and dominance effects and identification of epistatic effects in livestock is not yet widespread. The aim of this study was to identify and characterize epistatic effects between common and novel QTL regions for carcass composition and meat quality traits in pig.
Five hundred and eighty five F2 pigs from a Duroc × Pietrain resource population were genotyped using 131 genetic markers (microsatellites and SNP) spread over the 18 pig autosomes. Phenotypic information for 26 carcass composition and meat quality traits was available for all F2 animals. Linkage analysis was performed in a two-step procedure using a maximum likelihood approach implemented in the QxPak program.
A number of interacting QTL was observed for different traits, leading to the identification of a variety of networks among chromosomal regions throughout the porcine genome. We distinguished 17 epistatic QTL pairs for carcass composition and 39 for meat quality traits. These interacting QTL pairs explained up to 8% of the phenotypic variance.
Our findings demonstrate the significance of epistasis in pigs. We have revealed evidence for epistatic relationships between different chromosomal regions, confirmed known QTL loci and connected regions reported in other studies. Considering interactions between loci allowed us to identify several novel QTL and trait-specific relationships of loci within and across chromosomes.
Until now, most QTL studies have considered additive and dominance effects and sometimes imprinting effects, but epistatic interactions between two or more loci are commonly ignored. The significance of interactions between different loci in explaining the genetic variability of traits has long been controversial.
Epistatic effects can be clearly defined and verified when a combination of two mutations yields an unexpected phenotype that cannot be explained by the independent effect of each mutation . For example, Steiner et al.  have demonstrated the effect of gene interactions for a binary expressed trait (coat color), which is influenced by two or three loci. However, the evaluation of epistasis for complex traits is much more demanding because these traits are influenced by environmental effects and large numbers of polymorphic loci . For complex traits, it is useful to analyze the variation in a resource population established for QTL studies, by applying epistatic QTL models.
Most published studies on epistatic effects of interacting QTL have focused on plants and laboratory animals rather than livestock species, which is a paradox since it seems obvious that the variance of a complex trait in livestock animals cannot be explained by additive genetic effects alone .
In plants, investigations into epistatic effects concern mainly rice hybrids for traits such as grain yield, plant height and heating date [5, 6], but epistatic effects have also been identified in maize, oat and Arabidopsis.
Most epistatic QTL studies related to mammals analyze data from laboratory animals. Brockmann et al.  have shown that in a mouse intercross used to select for body weight and fat accumulation, epistatic effects contributed 33% and 36% of the total phenotypic variation, respectively, whereas epistatic effects contributed only 21% of the variation. Kim et al.  have investigated non-insulin-dependent diabetes in two backcross populations of mice i.e. B6 and CAST crosses. They have detected five interacting QTL in the B6 cross but none in the CAST cross. Shimomura et al.  have detected ten epistatic QTL connected to circadian behavior in mice. Sugiyama et al.  have found six single QTL associated with blood pressure in rats but 36% of this trait's phenotypic variance could be explained by a single two-dimensional epistatic factor. Koller et al.  have examined the mineral density of bones in a reciprocal cross in rats and found epistatic effects between known and novel QTL and between pairs of completely unknown QTL.
In livestock species, epistatic effects have been detected in chicken and swine. In chickens, Carlborg et al. [13, 14] have identified epistatic effects on growth traits, which accounted for up to 80% of the genetic variation. In swine, ten QTL pairs for eight muscle fiber traits in an intercross between Iberian and Landrace breeds  and interacting genomic regions for carcass composition traits and intramuscular fat content in F2 crosses between Pietrain and three other commercial lines have been reported. Additional studies have revealed epistatic relationships influencing meat color, fatty acid composition and reproductive traits such as teat number or litter size [17–20].
In this work, we have evaluated the importance of epistatic effects in pig breeding by identifying epistatic QTL effects for carcass composition and meat quality in an F2 cross composed of commercial pig lines.
Animals and analyzed traits
Mean and standard deviation for carcass composition and meat quality
Traits for carcass composition1
Carcass length [cm]
Backfat shoulder [cm]
Backfat 13th/14th rib [cm]
Backfat loin [cm]
Backfat mean [cm]
Backfat thickness above M. long. dorsi, 13/14th ribs [cm]
Side fat thickness [cm]
Fat area above the M. long. dorsi at 13/14th rib [cm2]
Loin eye area at 13/14th rib, M. long. dorsi [cm2]
loin eye area
Ratio of fat to muscle area
Fat muscle ratio
Estimated carcass lean content, Bonner formula [%]
Estimated belly lean content [%]
Traits for meat quality 1
pH-value M. long. dorsi 45 min p.m.
pH 1 h loin
pH-value M. long. dorsi 24 h p.m.
pH 24 h loin
pH decline M. long. dorsi
pH-value M. semimembranosus 24 h p.m.
pH 24 h ham
Conductivity M. long. dorsi 45 min p.m
cond. 1 h loin
Conductivity M. long. dorsi 24 h p.m.
cond. 24 h loin
Conductivity M. semimembranosus 24 h p.m.
cond. 24 h ham
Meat color, opto-value
Traits for meat quality 2
Drip loss [g]
Cooking loss [g]
Thawing loss [g]
Warner-Bratzler shear force [kg]
Intra muscular fat content [%]
One hundred and twenty five microsatellites and six SNP markers were used to genotype animals of the parental (P), F1 and F2 generations. Genetic markers were equally spaced on the 18 pig autosomes and covered 89% of these. In comparison to Liu et al. , who analyzed the data with a single QTL model, 18 genetic markers (microsatellites and SNP) were added to the data set. The CRI-MAP 2.4 software was used with the options "build", "twopoint" and "fixed" to recalculate the sex-average linkage map . Additional information regarding the markers, i.e. genetic position (in Kosambi cM), number of identified alleles and polymorphism information content are given in Additional file 1 (see Additional file 1).
For carcass composition and intramuscular fat content (IMF), the season/year of birth and the sex were included in the model as fixed effects (F) and carcass weight and age at slaughter as covariates (βcov). For traits like pH, conductivity and meat color, factors including sex, slaughter season, carcass weight and age at slaughter were used. Family, sex, carcass weight and age at slaughter were included in the analyses of drip loss, thawing loss, cooking loss and shear force.
Interactions between two QTL were detected by the series of model comparisons suggested by Estelle et al. . The statistical analysis can be subdivided into the following two steps, which were performed using the statistical package Qxpak 4.0 .
Step 1: Preselection of epistatic regions
The definitions of these interaction terms follow the rules of Varona et al. . P1 and P2 refer to the probability of a QTL at locations 1 and 2, P(QQ) the probability of the grandparental line (Duroc) being homozygous, P(qq) the probability of the other grandparental line (Pietrain) being homozygous and P(Qq) the probability of being heterozygous. These equations imply unlinked interacting loci . The IBD probabilities were computed by a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm with 10000 iterations . Model 1 was tested against model 0 with likelihood ratio tests (LRT) to assess the significance of the effects of interacting QTL. Nominal P-values were calculated assuming chi-squared distribution of the LRT with four degrees of freedom. Interacting QTL pairs with a nominal P-value < 0.001 were selected to be further analyzed in step 2.
However, the results of this model comparison cannot be directly used for the detection of epistasis because the two regions might interact solely in an additive way. The exclusion of the main genetic effects and the definition of widely-spaced 5 cM pseudo-loci are justified by the long computing time necessary for this unsaturated genetic model.
In addition to interactions between regions on different chromosomes, intrachromosomal interactions were investigated. To avoid large, overlapping confidence intervals, interacting QTL positions were selected when the genome regions involved were larger than 30 cM. If the two regions are closer than 30 cM, there is a high risk that an interaction might be observed, which can be explained in reality by a single QTL.
Step 2: Calculation of epistasis
Finally, the statistical contrast between models 2 and 3 for evidence of epistasis was carried out using an LRT with four degrees of freedom in the numerator.
As discussed in Mercade et al. , permutation techniques cannot be applied here because an infinitesimal genetic value is included. A randomization of the data would destroy the family structure. Nevertheless, it is necessary to prove the reliability of epistatic QTL pairs. For this purpose, a Bonferroni correction assuming statistical independence every 40 cM was used as in Noguera et al. . The genome-wide critical values of LRT for the significance levels associated with type I errors where α = 0.05, 0.01 or 0.001 were 18.00, 20.45 and 26.21, respectively.
To verify the importance of each epistatic interaction effect involved (a × a, a × d, d × a and d × d; a for additive and d for dominance), the simple heuristic method of Estelle et al.  was used. This method judges an epistatic effect as relevant (significant) if the effect size exceeds two residual SD of model 0.
The proportion of the phenotypic variance explained by the genetic components was calculated by the differences between the residual variances of the compared models.
Step 1: Preselection of QTL pairs
The number of significant QTL pairs identified in step 1 varied from three to 34 for different traits. In general, low numbers were detected for traits that are known to have high measurement errors due to environmental effects (drip loss, cooking loss and thawing loss) or to the error-prone measurement technique (side fat). In this step, all QTL identified as significant in the single-QTL analysis  were also found to be significant in combination with other QTL in the bi-dimensional analysis of step 1.
The significant QTL regions identified in step 1 are interesting candidates for epistasis, but the results of this scan cannot be used as final proof for such effects because the main and interactive genetic effects are not separated. For a final validation of epistatic effects, a fully saturated model including genetic main effects and interaction effects is needed, which leads directly to step 2.
Step 2: Calculation of epistatic effects
Evidence of epistatic QTL loci for carcass composition and meat quality traits
SSC pos.1 (cM)1
SSC pos. 2 (cM)1
BFT 13/14 rib
Fat muscle ratio
Loin eye area
Meat quality 1
SSC pos.1 (cM) 1
SSC pos.2 (cM) 1
Epist. Var 4
QTL Var 5
pH 1 h loin
pH 24 h loin
pH decline loin
pH 24 h ham
Conductivity 1 h loin
Conductivity 24 h loin
Conductivity 24 h ham
Meat quality 2
SSC pos.1 (cM) 1
SSC pos.2 (cM) 1
Epist. Var 4
QTL Var 5
Overall, 19 a × a, 11 a × d, 13 d × a and 29 d × d significant interactions were observed. For 16 epistatic QTL pairs, it was not possible to detect any more relevant effects (see additional file 2). Although the general epistatic interaction term was significant for 16 QTL pairs, the effect size of the involved single epistatic effects did not exceed two residual SD (model 2).
The proportion of the phenotypic variance explained by the particular interaction term ranged from 2.5% to 8.5%. The proportion of epistatic variance relative to the entire QTL variance exceeded 50% in most cases (Table 2).
QTL for carcass composition traits
Furthermore, high d × d interaction effects were observed for ECLC for one QTL on SSC2 (125 to 135 cM), which interacted with one locus on SSC4 (96 to 98 cM) and another locus on SSC7 (1 cM). Additionally, epistatic QTL pairs were detected for the same loci on SSC2 (135 cM) and SSC4 (96 to 98 cM) related to the loin eye area and also along SSC2 (125 cM) and SSC7 (1 cM) for the fat:muscle ratio. In general, these interacting genomic areas showed the highest d × d interactions in comparison to other single epistatic effects, except the loci on SSC2 and SSC7, where the d × a interaction was the most prevalent. Two to 6% of the phenotypic variance was explained by the relationships between SSC2 and SSC4 and between SSC2 and SSC7 for these carcass composition traits.
No epistatic effects were identified for carcass length, shoulder BFT, mean BFT, side fat and estimated lean belly content.
QTL for meat quality traits
A total of 14 suggestive (P < 0.05), 18 significant (P < 0.01) and seven highly significant (P < 0.001) QTL were identified for all meat quality traits except drip loss (Table 2). With regard to the number of epistatic QTL pairs, the cooking loss trait involved eight interacting QTL pairs and the pH decline six, which were the highest numbers of epistatic loci for all meat quality traits.
Close relationships were found between SSC8 (1 to 6 cM) and SSC15 (71 to 77 cM) and between SSC12 (45 to 48 cM) and SSC16 (1 cM) for pH 1 h loin and pH decline (Figure 1). For these epistatic effects, a × a and d × d interactions exceeded two SD and were generally more prevalent than a × d or d × a (see Additional file 2). The highest explained proportion of the phenotypic variance was 6.85% for an epistatic QTL pair located on SSC4 (14 cM) and SSC11 (16 cM) related to pH 24 h in loin. The proportion of the phenotypic variance of meat quality traits explained by epistasis ranged from 2.27% to 4.51%. For the measurements of conductivity in loin and ham, four epistatic relationships between seven QTL loci were observed.
Within the group of meat quality traits examined, 16 epistatic relationships among loci were identified (Table 2). For cooking loss, a locus on SSC7 (40 to 50 cM) showed a × d, d × a and d × d interactions with regions on SSC13 (13 cM), SSC16 (108 cM) and SSC17 (60 cM). Additionally, a relationship was identified between the epistatic QTL on SSC16 (102 cM) and one locus on SSC4 (43 cM), but none of the epistatic effects exceeded two SD. The identified loci on SSC4 and SSC7 in combination had no significant effect on cooking loss. In addition, the epistatic locus on SSC16 (102 to 106 cM) did not only affect cooking loss. Influences on shear force were also detectable within an interaction between SSC2 (145 cM) and SSC16 (102 cM). The highest explained proportion of the phenotypic variance was 8.2% for IMF between SSC1 (263 cM) and SSC6 (101 cM) and 8.5% for an intrachromosomal epistatic QTL pair on SSC5.
Most QTL studies in pigs involve additive and dominance effects but epistasis is often ignored. To our knowledge, seven studies using epistatic models in pigs have been published [15–20, 28]. In general, the use of epistatic models makes it possible to identify QTL, which interact with other QTL not only in an additive way but also via a × a, a × d, d × a and d × d interactions. In comparison to single- or double-QTL analyses, the main benefit of including epistatic QTL effects is the detection of novel QTL that affect a quantitative trait through epistatic interactions with another locus . The identification of a considerable number of novel QTL in our study underlines this advantage. However, analyzing epistatic effects between two loci is computationally demanding because all pairwise combinations must be investigated [15, 16]. In addition, the use of microsatellite information renders the distinction between two loci on the same or different chromosomes approximate.
In this study, 56 epistatic QTL pairs involving 104 interacting QTL positions were identified across all the autosomes for porcine carcass composition and meat quality traits. As shown in Tables 2 and Additional file 3 (see Additional file 3), 12 of these epistatic QTL positions were detected both in the single-QTL analysis of Liu et al. [23, 31] and as novel epistatic QTL in our study. Six regions were related to carcass composition and six to meat quality traits. It can be assumed that these epistatic QTL play an important role in the expression of these phenotypes.
In regard to carcass composition (ECLC and fat muscle ratio), one epistatic QTL position located on SSC2 (125 to 135 cM) interacts with two other QTL regions on SSC4 (98 cM) and SSC7 (1 cM), respectively. This SSC2 locus was previously reported by Liu et al.  as a single QTL and by Lee et al. , who analyzed a Meishan × Pietrain cross. The same position was also detected for the loin eye area trait by Estelle et al. .
The epistatic relationships between SSC2 (125 to 135 cM) and regions on SSC4 (98 cM) and SSC7 (1 cM) explain 2.9% of the phenotypic variance for ECLC. The corresponding entire QTL variances (sum of epistatic and individual QTL variances) at these positions are 4.5% and 5% respectively, for the interactions between SSC2 (135 cM) and SSC4 (98 cM) and SSC2 (125 cM) and SSC7 (1 cM). It can be assumed that the 2% difference between epistatic and entire QTL variances is due to the individual QTL effect of the locus on SSC2, which was reported by Liu et al. . It follows from this that the effects of the individual QTL loci on SSC4 and SSC7 are presumably small and difficult to detect in a single-QTL analysis. Calpastatin (CAST) and tropomyosin (TPM4) located on SSC2 between 125 and 135 cM are potential candidate genes for ECLC [34, 35]. The locus on SSC4 (98 cM) is related to backfat and loin eye area traits [36–38]and carries the candidate gene transforming growth factor beta-3 (TGF-β3) . In conclusion, all three genes play roles in skeletal, muscle and tissue development. The locus on SSC2 (125 cM) is also influenced by a region on SSC7 (1 cM) where Ponsuksili et al.  have identified a QTL for several backfat traits in a Duroc × Berlin Miniature pig F2 cross.
Additionally, we observed an interacting QTL pair between SSC8 (58 to 62 cM) and SSC10 (70 to 80 cM) that influences the loin eye area, ECLC and fat:muscle ratio traits. The involvement of the SSC8 locus had already been detected by a single-QTL analysis of these three traits . For the fat:muscle ratio, the proportion of phenotypic variance was completely explained by epistatic effects. There was a 2% difference between epistatic variance and the sum of epistatic and individual QTL variances for the ECLC and loin eye area traits. Considering the single QTL variances presented by Liu et al. , we conclude that the SSC8 locus (58 to 62 cM) has important single QTL and epistatic QTL effects, whereas the SSC10 locus (70 to 80 cM) has only epistatic effects. This assumption is partially contradicted by Thomsen et al. , who has reported a single QTL at the same position on SSC10 that only affects the loin eye area trait.
In regard to the fat area trait, a region on the p arm of SSC6 (73 cM) interacts with SSC13 (11 cM), and a region on the q arm of SSC6 (113 cM) interacts with SSC12 (32 cM). The locus on the p arm of SSC6 has been previously detected by Liu et al.  and the locus on the q arm by Mohrmann et al.  in a resource family of Pietrain and crossbred dams (created from Large White, Landrace and Leicoma breeds). Leptin receptor (LEPR), which is involved in neonatal growth and development , is a candidate gene for the region on the SSC6 q arm.
A significant epistatic relationship was detected between SSC16 (80 cM) and SSC18 (21 cM) for BFT-13/14 rib. As shown by the QTL variance ratios in Table 2, this effect between both positions is mainly epistatic. However, Liu et al.  had identified the QTL region on SSC16 not for BFT-13/14 rib but for other backfat traits in the DuPi population. The locus on SSC18 was detected in the DuPi population by Edwards et al.  and in a cross of Berkshire and Yorkshire breeds . Both studies included imprinting effects in the single-QTL models. Although Liu et al.  had applied a similar imprinting model, they did not identify an effect on SSC18 for backfat traits.
In this study, BFT thickness is influenced by an epistatic QTL pair on SSC7 (138 cM) and SSC13 (61 cM). The QTL position on SSC7 has not been identified as a single QTL in our population but it has already been reported in two studies [40, 45]. Ponsuksili et al.  have shown that the region surrounding the locus on SSC7 is involved in the hepatic metabolic pathway.
Five epistatic QTL pairs involving ten loci were identified for pH 24 h in ham. Three QTL, located on SSC1 (108 cM), SSC2 (179 cM) and SSC15 (61 cM), have been previously detected by Liu et al.  in a single-QTL analysis and the QTL on SSC1 (108 cM) was shown to interact with a region on SSC5 (126 cM). Twelve percent of the phenotypic variance has been explained by this QTL pair, with 4% going back to the epistatic term and 8% to the single QTL on SSC1 reported by Liu et al. . In addition to the work of Liu et al. , we analyzed the IMF and pH decline traits with a single-QTL model. No single QTL was found for IMF, whereas SSC15 (69 cM), which is comparable to the position detected for pH 24 h mentioned above, and SSC1 (119 cM) were identified for pH decline.
Furthermore, all these regions have been shown to carry several candidate genes involved in muscle development, composition and metabolism , e.g., alpha-tropomyosin (TPM1) and ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial F1 complex, alpha subunit 1 (ATP5A1) related to the region on SSC1; and myosin binding protein C (MYBPC1) and ATP synthase, H+ transporting, mitochondrial F1 complex (ATP5B) related to SSC5 [47, 48].
A position on SSC2 (145 to 166 cM) related to shear force is significant for individual and epistatic QTL effects  and has been identified in a Berkshire × Duroc intercross . This region interacts with loci on SSC7, SSC13 and SSC16. The SSC7 and SSC13 loci have been described as single QTL in other studies [44, 50, 51]. A particularly large number of candidate genes has been identified for the epistatic relationship between SSC2 (166 cM) and SSC7 (87 cM). The SSC2 locus contains genes such as tropomyosin-4 (TMP4) and GM2 activator protein (GM2A) [52, 53], whereas SSC7 carries the myosin, heavy chain 6 (MYH6) and myosin, heavy chain 7 (MYH7) genes . The biological functions of these genes are primarily related to muscle composition.
Until now, we have only discussed epistatic QTL pairs with at least one locus previously detected as a single QTL in the DuPi population analyzed by Liu et al. . We have identified many other epistatic loci that do not have a corresponding result in the single-QTL analysis. Of the 104 QTL positions involved in the 56 epistatic QTL, 12 have been reported by Liu et al.  and are detected by our single-QTL analysis, 30 have been reported in the literature and 62 are presumably novel positions. In general, the effects of these QTL pairs can be explained by purely epistatic effects, in which the single QTL of each involved position is of minor importance. The significance of the epistatic effects can be inferred from the difference between the epistastic variance and the sum of epistatic and individual QTL variances, which is frequently close to zero (Table 2). Similar results have been reported by Duthie et al. , who also detect novel QTL based on an epistatic QTL analysis.
Reported QTL in the literature around similar locations as the QTL identified in the present study
SSC (position cM)1
BFT 13/14 rib
SW2540 - SW1023
SW1564 - SW834
SW1029 - SW7
Fat muscle ratio
SW240 - SW1564
SW1029 - SW7
Loin eye area
SW1564 - SW834
S0214 - S0097
SW1029 - SW7
SW830 - S0070
SW840 - SW2431
Meat quality 1
SSC (position cM) 1
pH decline loin
SW2570 - S0002
S0035 - S0087
SW936 - SW1119
pH 24 h loin
SW27 - S0164
S0227 - S0001
S0070 - SW951
S0071 - S0009
SW1023 - SB58
pH 24 ham
S0312 - SW2166
SWR2157 - SW1879
IGF1 - SW1954
S0070 - SW951
SW936 - SW1119
SW1023 - SB58
Conductivity. 24 h loin
SWR453 - SW2425
TNNC - SW398
Conductivity 24 h ham
S0070 - SW951
SW175 - S0115
Meat quality 2
SSC (position cM) 1
S0025 - S0064
S0219 - SW344
S0355 - SW1111
SW834 - S0226
SW175 - S0115
SW398 - S0289
S0005 - SW1987
S0059 - S0003
Significant epistatic relationships can be observed between QTL positions on SSC7, SSC13 and SSC16, which mainly influence the expression of cooking loss and shear force. A QTL locus on SSC7 (40 to 50 cM) for cooking loss has been reported by de Koning et al.  in an F2 cross of Meishan and commercial Dutch pigs and this region carries the MHC genes, which are potential candidate genes . Other single-QTL analyses have revealed epistatic loci on SSC13 (13 cM) and SSC16 (108 cM) [31, 58]. The epistatic QTL position on SSC16 (102 to 108 cM) also interacts with loci on SSC4 (43 cM, cooking loss) and SSC2 (145 to 160 cM, shear force). Though a novel QTL, SSC16 may play an important role in tenderness traits.
Three epistatic QTL pairs not yet mentioned are involved in the expression of loin pH 24 h. All the QTL positions involved have been reported in the literature and are relevant for meat quality [18, 50, 51, 59]. Moreover, four QTL pairs involving eight epistatic QTL loci are relevant for loin pH 1 h. Although all the positions for this trait have not been published yet, many other loci are well known. The high number of epistatic interactions shows the complexity of postmortem metabolic processes in meat, which need further clarification . As an example of this complexity, Figure 1 depicts all the epistatic loci for pH traits. Most QTL pairs have an impact on more than one trait, and the number of QTL positions that epistatically influence a single trait ranges from three to eight. Pleiotropy and co-regulation are important factors of genetic control to compensate for up- and down-regulation of correlated traits by gene interactions [8, 61].
Epistasis appears to be an important contributor to genetic variation in carcass composition and meat quality traits. Subdividing epistatic effects into the structural types (a × a, a × d, d × a and d × d) allows a deeper insight into the genetic mechanisms behind the expression of these phenotypes. As shown in Additional file 2 (see Additional file 2), all types of structural epistasis can be found across all traits. Often, more than one component is significant, indicating complex genetic structures, particularly for meat quality traits. On average, d × d interactions are the most prevalent. Twenty-nine pairs exhibit d × d, 19 a × a, 11 a × d and 13 d × a epistatic effects. Moreover, the importance of dominance becomes more obvious by summing up the three epistatic effects (a × d, d × a and d × d) that comprise dominance. With respect to all traits, we observed this composite effect for 33 of 40 cases, which makes it more important than a × a effects. Epistatic dominance contributes to heterosis, and it has been widely shown that heterosis plays an important role in the genetics of carcass composition and meat quality .
For seven QTL pairs, a × a effects were more prevalent in the expression of traits (e.g., epistasis among SSC3 and SSC14 for conductivity 1 h loin) than were other interaction effects containing dominance. According to Carlborg and Haley , a × a effects are indicators of co-adaptive epistasis and occur when the homozygous alleles of the two loci that originate from the same parental line show enhanced performance. This type of gene interaction is particularly interesting, since the loci have no significant individual effects . This might be the reason why some of our novel epistatic QTL positions have not been not found in a single-QTL analysis. Selection strategies among the parental lines might lead to fixation of different alleles at the relevant loci, regulating the expression of a specific phenotype in a way that makes statistical epistasis unapparent in either population .
In the present study, a bi-dimensional scan identified a large number of epistatic QTL pairs involved in the expression of carcass composition and meat quality traits. These results show that the genetic architecture of carcass composition and meat quality is mainly composed of a complex network of interacting genes rather than of the sum of individual QTL effects. Combining epistatic QTL experiments with subsequent gene expression profiling can be a promising strategy to clarify the underlying biological processes of muscle development and metabolism.
This work was part of the FUGATO-plus (Functional Genome Analysis in Animal Organisms) GeneDialog project and was supported by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Germany. The authors are grateful for the support of the team on the experimental farm Frankenforst of the University of Bonn.
- Roth FP, Lipshitz HD, Andrews BJ: Q&A: Epistasis. BMC Biol. 2009, 8: 35-39.Google Scholar
- Steiner CC, Weber JN, Hoekstra HE: Adaptive variation in beach mice produced by two interacting pigmentation genes. PLoS Biol. 2007, 5: 1880-1889. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050219.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Phillips PC: Epistasis - the essential role of gene interactions in the structure and evolution of genetic systems. Nat Rev Genet. 2008, 9: 855-867. 10.1038/nrg2452.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Carlborg O, Haley CS: Epistasis: too often neglected in complex trait studies?. Nat Rev Genet. 2004, 5: 618-U614. 10.1038/nrg1407.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Li L, Lu K, Chen Z, Mu T, Hu Z, Li X: Dominance, Overdominance and Epistasis Condition the Heterosis in Two Heterotic Rice Hybrids. Genetics. 2008, 180: 1725-1742. 10.1534/genetics.108.091942.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yu SB, Li JX, Xu CG, Tan YF, Gao YJ, Li XH, Zhang Q, Maroof MAS: Importance of epistasis as the genetic basis of heterosis in an elite rice hybrid. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997, 94: 9226-9231. 10.1073/pnas.94.17.9226.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Asíns MJ: Present and future of quantitative trait locus analysis in plant breeding. Plant Breed. 2002, 121: 281-291. 10.1046/j.1439-0523.2002.730285.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brockmann GA, Kratzsch J, Haley CS, Renne U, Schwerin M, Karle S: Single QTL effects, epistasis, and pleiotropy account for two-thirds of the phenotypic F-2 variance of growth and obesity in DU6i × DBA/2 mice. Genome Res. 2000, 10: 1941-1957. 10.1101/gr.GR1499R.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kim JH, Sen S, Avery CS, Simpson E, Chandler P, Nishina PM, Churchill GA, Naggert JK: Genetic analysis of a new mouse model for non-insulin-dependent diabetes. Genomics. 2001, 74: 273-286. 10.1006/geno.2001.6569.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Shimomura K, Low-Zeddies SS, King DP, Steeves TDL, Whiteley A, Kushla J, Zemenides PD, Lin A, Vitaterna MH, Churchill GA, Takahashi JS: Genome-wide epistatic interaction analysis reveals complex genetic determinants of circadian behavior in mice. Genome Res. 2001, 11: 959-980. 10.1101/gr.171601.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sugiyama F, Churchill GA, Higgins DC, Johns C, Makaritsis KP, Gavras H, Paigen B: Concordance of murine quantitative trait loci for salt-induced hypertension with rat and human loci. Genomics. 2001, 71: 70-77. 10.1006/geno.2000.6401.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Koller DL, Liu LX, Alam I, Sun QW, Econs MJ, Foroud T, Turner CH: Epistatic effects contribute to variation in BMD in Fischer 344 × Lewis F2 rats. J Bone Miner Res. 2008, 23: 41-47. 10.1359/jbmr.071001.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Carlborg O, Kerje S, Schutz K, Jacobsson L, Jensen P, Andersson L: A global search reveals epistatic interaction between QTL for early growth in the chicken. Genome Res. 2003, 13: 413-421. 10.1101/gr.528003.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Carlborg R, Hocking PM, Burt DW, Haley CS: Simultaneous mapping of epistatic QTL in chickens reveals clusters of QTL pairs with similar genetic effects on growth. Genet Res. 2004, 83: 197-209. 10.1017/S0016672304006779.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Estelle J, Gil F, Vazquez JM, Latorre R, Ramirez G, Barragan MC, Folch JM, Noguera JL, Toro MA, Perez-Enciso M: A quantitative trait locus genome scan for porcine muscle fiber traits reveals overdominance and epistasis. J Anim Sci. 2008, 86: 3290-3299. 10.2527/jas.2008-1034.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Duthie C, Simm G, Doeschl-Wilson A, Kalm E, Knap PW, Roehe R: Epistatic analysis of carcass characteristics in pigs reveals genomic interactions between quantitative trait loci due to additive and dominance genetic effects. J Anim Sci. 2009-2266. jasGoogle Scholar
- Noguera J, Rodriguez C, Varona L, Tomas A, Munoz G, Ramirez O, Barragan C, Arque M, Bidanel J, Amills M, Ovilo C, Sanchez A: A bi-dimensional genome scan for prolificacy traits in pigs shows the existence of multiple epistatic QTL. BMC Genomics. 2009, 10: 636-10.1186/1471-2164-10-636.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ovilo C, Clop A, Noguera JL, Oliver MA, Barragan C, Rodriguez C, Silo L, Toro MA, Coll A, Folch JM, Sanchez A, Babot D, Varona L, Perez-Enciso M: Quantitative trait locus mapping for meat quality traits in an Iberian × Landrace F-2 pig population. J Anim Sci. 2002, 80: 2801-2808.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rodriguez C, Tomas A, Alves E, Ramirez O, Arque M, Munoz G, Barragan C, Varona L, Silio L, Amills M, Noguera JL: QTL mapping for teat number in an Iberian-by-Meishan pig intercross. Anim Genet. 2005, 36: 490-496.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Uemoto Y, Sato S, Ohnishi C, Terai S, Komatsuda A, Kobayashi E: The effects of single and epistatic quantitative trait loci for fatty acid composition in a Meishan × Duroc crossbred population. J Anim Sci. 2009, 87: 3470-3476. 10.2527/jas.2009-1917.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Zentralverband der Deutschen Schweineproduktion (ZDS): Richtlinie für die Stationsprüfung auf Mastleistung, Schlachtkörperwert und Fleischbeschaffenheit beim Schwein, 10.12.2003. Book Richtlinie für die Stationsprüfung auf Mastleistung, Schlachtkörperwert und Fleischbeschaffenheit beim Schwein, 10.12.2003 Bonn.Google Scholar
- Firth NL, Ross DA, Thonney ML: Comparison of Ether and Chloroform for Soxhlet Extraction of Freeze-Dried Animal-Tissues. J Assoc Offic Anal Chem. 1985, 68: 1228-1231.Google Scholar
- Liu GS, Jennen DGJ, Tholen E, Juengst H, Kleinwachter T, Holker M, Tesfaye D, Un G, Schreinemachers HJ, Murani E, Ponsuksili S, Kim JJ, Schellander K, Wimmers K: A genome scan reveals QTL for growth, fatness, leanness and meat quality in a Duroc-Pietrain resource population. Anim Genet. 2007, 38: 241-252. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2007.01592.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Green P: Document for CRI-MAP, version 2.4. 1992, Washington University School of MedicineGoogle Scholar
- Seaton G, Haley CS, Knott SA, Kearsey M, Visscher PM: QTL Express: mapping quantitative trait loci in of simple and complex pedigrees. Bioinformatics. 2002, 18: 339-340. 10.1093/bioinformatics/18.2.339.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Perez-Enciso M, Misztal I: Qxpak: a versatile mixed model application for genetical genomics and QTL analyses. Bioinformatics. 2004, 20: 2792-2798. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth331.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cockerham CC: An extension of the concept of partitioning hereditary variance for analysis of covariances among relatives when epistasis is present. Genetics. 1954, 39: 859-882.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Varona L, Ovilo C, Clop A, Noguera JL, Perez-Enciso M, Coll A, Folch JM, Barragan C, Toro MA, Babot D, Sanchez A: QTL mapping for growth and carcass traits in an Iberian by Landrace pig intercross: additive, dominant and epistatic effects. Genet Res. 2002, 80: 145-154. 10.1017/S0016672302005803.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kao CH, Zeng ZB: Modeling Epistasis of Quantitative Trait Loci Using Cockerham's Model. Genetics. 2002, 160: 1243-1261.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mercade A, Estelle J, Noguera JL, Folch JM, Varona L, Silio L, Sanchez A, Perez-Enciso M: On growth, fatness, and form: A further look at porcine Chromosome 4 in an Iberian × Landrace cross. Mamm Genome. 2005, 16: 374-382. 10.1007/s00335-004-2447-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Liu GS, Kim JJ, Jonas E, Wimmers K, Ponsuksili S, Murani E, Phatsara C, Tholen E, Juengst H, Tesfaye D, Chen JL, Schellander K: Combined line-cross and half-sib QTL analysis in Duroc-Pietrain population. Mamm Genome. 2008, 19: 429-438. 10.1007/s00335-008-9132-y.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee SS, Chen Y, Moran C, Stratil A, Reiner G, Bartenschlager H, Moser G, Geldermann H: Linkage and QTL mapping for Sus scrofa chromosome 2. J Anim Breed Genet. 2003, 120: 11-19. 10.1046/j.0931-2668.2003.00419.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Estelle J, Mercade A, Noguera JL, Perez-Enciso M, Ovilo C, Sanchez A, Folch JM: Effect of the porcine IGF2-intron3-G3072A substitution in an outbred Large White population and in an Iberian × Landrace cross. J Anim Sci. 2005, 83: 2723-2728.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ernst CW, Robic A, Yerle M, Wang L, Rothschild MF: Mapping of calpastatin and three microsatellites to porcine chromosome 2q2.1-q2.4. Anim Genet. 1998, 29: 212-215. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.1998.00319.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fridolfsson AK, Hori T, Wintero AK, Fredholm M, Yerle M, Robic A, Andersson L, Ellegren H: Expansion of the pig comparative map by expressed sequence tags (EST) mapping. Mamm Genome. 1997, 8: 907-912. 10.1007/s003359900609.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Knott SA, Marklund L, Haley CS, Andersson K, Davies W, Ellegren H, Fredholm M, Hansson I, Hoyheim B, Lundstrom K, Moller M, Andersson L: Multiple marker mapping of quantitative trait loci in a cross between outbred wild boar and large white pigs. Genetics. 1998, 149: 1069-1080.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Malek M, Dekkers JCM, Lee HK, Baas TJ, Prusa K, Huff-Lonergan E, Rothschild MF: A molecuar genome scan analysis to identify chromosomal regions influencing economic traits in the pig. II. Meat and muscle composition. Mamm Genome. 2001, 12: 637-645. 10.1007/s003350020019.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Perez-Enciso M, Clop A, Noguera JL, Ovilo C, Coll A, Folch JM, Babot D, Estany J, Oliver MA, Diaz I, Sanchez A: A QTL on pig chromosome 4 affects fatty acid metabolism: Evidence from an Iberian by Landrace intercross. J Anim Sci. 2000, 78: 2525-2531.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Johnson DW, Qumsiyeh M, Benkhalifa M, Douglas DA: Assignment of Human Transforming Growth-Factor-Beta Type-I and Type-Iii Receptor Genes (Tgfbr1 and Tgfbr3) to 9Q33-Q34 and 1P32-P-33, Respectively. Genomics. 1995, 28: 356-357. 10.1006/geno.1995.1157.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ponsuksili S, Chomdej S, Murani E, Blaser U, Schreinemachers HJ, Schellander K, Wimmers K: SNP detection and genetic mapping of porcine genes encoding enzymes in hepatic metabolic pathways and evaluation of linkage with carcass traits. Anim Genet. 2005, 36: 477-483.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thomsen H, Lee HK, Rothschild MF, Malek M, Dekkers JCM: Characterization of quantitative trait loci for growth and meat quality in a cross between commercial breeds of swine. J Anim Sci. 2004, 82: 2213-2228.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mohrmann M, Roehe R, Knap PW, Looft H, Plastow GS, Kalm E: Quantitative trait loci associated with AutoFOM grading characteristics, carcass cuts and chemical body composition during growth of Sus scrofa. Anim Genet. 2006, 37: 435-443. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2006.01492.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Attig L, Djiane J, Gertler A, Rampin O, Larcher T, Boukthir S, Anton PM, Madec JY, Gourdou I, Abdennebi-Najar L: Study of hypothalamic leptin receptor expression in low-birth-weight piglets and effects of leptin supplementation on neonatal growth and development. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2008, 295: E1117-1125. 10.1152/ajpendo.90542.2008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Edwards DB, Ernst CW, Raney NE, Doumit ME, Hoge MD, Bates RO: Quantitative trait locus mapping in an F-2 Duroc × Pietrain resource population: II. Carcass and meat quality traits. J Anim Sci. 2008, 86: 254-266. 10.2527/jas.2006-626.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rohrer GA, Keele JW: Identification of quantitative trait loci affecting carcass composition in swine: I. Fat deposition traits. J Anim Sci. 1998, 76: 2247-2254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jennen DGJ, Brings AD, Liu G, Jungst H, Tholen E, Jonas E, Tesfaye D, Schellander K, Phatsara C: Genetic aspects concerning drip loss and water-holding capacity of porcine meat. J Anim Breed Genet. 2007, 124: 2-11. 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00681.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Davoli R, Fontanesi L, Zambonelli P, Bigi D, Gellin J, Yerle M, Milc J, Braglia S, Cenci V, Cagnazzo M, Russo V: Isolation of porcine expressed sequence tags for the construction of a first genomic transcript map of the skeletal muscle in pig. Anim Genet. 2002, 33: 3-18. 10.1046/j.1365-2052.2002.00800.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wu X, Zhu Z, Yerle M, Wang HL, Wang H, Gu M, Li K: Radiation hybrid mapping of four genes (MYBPC1, LUM, ZRF1 and ATP2B4) expressed in embryo skeleton muscle to pig chromosomes 5 and 9. Anim Genet. 2004, 35: 472-473. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2004.01195.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Meyers SN, Rodriguez-Zas SL, Beever JE: Fine-mapping of a QTL influencing pork tenderness on porcine chromosome 2. BMC Genet. 2007, 8: 69-10.1186/1471-2156-8-69.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- de Koning DJ, Harlizius B, Rattink AP, Groenen MAM, Brascamp EW, van Arendonk JAM: Detction and characterization of quantitative trait loci for meat quality traits in pigs. J Anim Sci. 2001, 79: 2812-2819.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Harmegnies N, Davin F, De Smet S, Buys N, Georges M, Coppieters W: Results of a whole-genome quantitative trait locus scan for growth, carcass composition and meat quality in a porcine four-way cross. Anim Genet. 2006, 37: 543-553. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2006.01523.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fridolfsson AK, Gyllensten UB, Jakobsson S: Microsatellite markers for paternity testing in the willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus: high frequency of extra-pair young in an island population. Hereditas. 1997, 126: 127-132. 10.1111/j.1601-5223.1997.00127.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pinton P, Schibler L, Cribiu E, Gellin J, Yerle M: Localization of 113 anchor loci in pigs: improvement of the comparative map for humans, pigs, and goats. Mamm Genome. 2000, 11: 306-315. 10.1007/s003350010057.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Beeckmann P, Schroffel J, Moser G, Bartenschlager H, Reiner G, Geldermann H: Linkage and QTL mapping for Sus scrofa chromosome 1. J Anim Breed Genet. 2003, 120: 1-10. 10.1046/j.0931-2668.2003.00418.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- de Koning DJ, Janss LLG, Rattink AP, van Oers PAM, de Vries BJ, Groenen MAM, van der Poel JJ, de Groot PN, Brascamp EW, van Arendonk JAM: Detection of quantitative trait loci for backfat thickness and intramuscular fat content in pigs (Sus scrofa). Genetics. 1999, 152: 1679-1690.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ma J, Ren J, Guo Y, Duan Y, Ding N, Zhou L, Li L, Yan X, Yang K, Huang L, Song Y, Xie J, Milan D, Huang L: Genome-wide identification of quantitative trait loci for carcass composition and meat quality in a large-scale White Duroc × Chinese Erhualian resource population. Anim Genet. 2009, 40: 637-647. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2009.01892.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Smith TP, Rohrer GA, Alexander LJ, Troyer DL, Kirby-Dobbels KR, Janzen MA, Cornwell DL, Louis CF, Schook LB, Beattie CW: Directed integration of the physical and genetic linkage maps of swine chromosome 7 reveals that the SLA spans the centromere. Genome Res. 1995, 5: 259-271. 10.1101/gr.5.3.259.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kim JJ, Rothschild MF, Beever J, Rodriguez-Zas S, Dekkers JCM: Joint analysis of two breed cross populations in pigs to improve detection and characterization of quantitative trait loci. J Anim Sci. 2005, 83: 1229-1240.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Evans GJ, Giuffra E, Sanchez A, Kerje S, Davalos G, Vidal O, Illan S, Noguera JL, Varona L, Velander I, Southwood OI, de Koning DJ, Haley CS, Plastow GS, Andersson L: Identification of quantitative trait loci for production traits in commercial pig populations. Genetics. 2003, 164: 621-627.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Carlborg O, Burt D, Hocking P, Haley CS: Simultaneous mapping of epistatic QTL in chickens reveals clusters of QTL pairs with similar genetic effects on growth. Genet Res. 2004, 83: 197-209. 10.1017/S0016672304006779.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wolf JB, Pomp D, Eisen EJ, Cheverud JM, Leamy LJ: The contribution of epistatic pleiotropy to the genetic architecture of covariation among polygenic traits in mice. Evol Dev. 2006, 8: 468-476. 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2006.00120.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sellier P, Monin G: Genetics of pig meat quality: A review. J Muscle Foods. 1994, 5: 187-219. 10.1111/j.1745-4573.1994.tb00530.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Herbst K: Endwicklung, Stand und Perspektiven der Schweineproduktion in der Bundesrepublick Deutschland. Zuchtungskunde. 1980, 52: 304-323.Google Scholar
- Guo YM, Lee GJ, Archibald AL, Haley CS: Quantitative trait loci for production traits in pigs: a combined analysis of two Meishan × Large White populations. Anim Genet. 2008, 39: 486-495. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2008.01756.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Duthie C, Simm G, Doeschl-Wilson A, Kalm E, Knap PW, Roehe R: Quantitative trait loci for chemical body composition traits in pigs and their positional associations with body tissues, growth and feed intake. Anim Genet. 2008, 39: 130-140. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2007.01689.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lee SS, Chen Y, Moran C, Stratil A, Reiner G, Bartenschlager H, Moser G, Geldermann H: Linkage and QTL mapping for Sus scrofa chromosome 5. J Anim Breed Genet. 2003, 120: 38-44. 10.1046/j.0931-2668.2003.00422.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rohrer GA, Keele JW: Identification of quantitative trait loci affecting carcass composition in swine: II. Muscling and wholesale product yield traits. J Anim Sci. 1998, 76: 2255-2262.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rohrer GA, Thallman RM, Shackelford S, Wheeler T, Koohmaraie M: A genome scan for loci affecting pork quality in a Duroc-Landrace F-2 population. Anim Genet. 2006, 37: 17-27. 10.1111/j.1365-2052.2005.01368.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Duan YY, Ma JW, Yuan F, Huang LB, Yang KX, Xie JP, Wu GZ, Huang LS: Genome-wide identification of quantitative trait loci for pork temperature, pH decline, and glycolytic potential in a large-scale White Duroc × Chinese Erhualian resource population. J Anim Sci. 2009, 87: 9-16. 10.2527/jas.2008-1128.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sanchez MP, Riquet J, Iannuccelli N, Gogue J, Billon Y, Demeure O, Caritez JC, Burgaud G, Feve K, Bonnet M, Pery C, Lagant H, Le Roy P, Bidanel JP, Milan D: Effects of quantitative trait loci on chromosomes 1, 2, 4, and 7 on growth, carcass, and meat quality traits in backcross Meishan × Large White pigs. J Anim Sci. 2006, 84: 526-537.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ramos A, Pita R, Malek M, Lopes P, Guimarães S, Rothschild M: Analysis of the mouse high-growth region in pigs. J Anim Breed Genet. 2009, 126: 404-412. 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2009.00801.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Srikanchai T, Murani E, Wimmers K, Ponsuksili S: Four loci differentially expressed in muscle tissue depending on water-holding capacity are associated with meat quality in commercial pig herds. Mol Biol Rep. 2009, 37: 595-601. 10.1007/s11033-009-9856-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Geldermann H, Muller E, Moser G, Reiner G, Bartenschlager H, Cepica S, Stratil A, Kuryl J, Moran C, Davoli R, Brunsch C: Genome-wide linkage and QTL mapping in porcine F-2 families generated from Pietrain, Meishan and Wild Boar crosses. J Anim Breed Genet. 2003, 120: 363-393. 10.1046/j.0931-2668.2003.00408.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Yue G, Russo V, Davoli R, Sternstein I, Brunsch C, Schröffelova D, Stratil A, Moser G, Bartenschlager H, Reiner G, Geldermann H: Linkage and QTL mapping for Sus scrofa chromosome 13. J Anim Breed Genet. 2003, 120: 103-110. 10.1046/j.0931-2668.2003.00430.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.