Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T13:12:55.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pig identification and meat traceability by multiallelic amplification fragments with multiple single nucleotide polymorphisms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2017

G. D. Xing ,
Y. N. Hu ,
Q. Ding ,
X. X. Wang ,
F. Xing ,
H. L. Wang ,
H. L. Huan  and
Y. X. Xu
G. D. Xing*
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210014, China
Y. N. Hu
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210014, China
Q. Ding
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210014, China College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210095, China
X. X. Wang
Affiliation:
Model Animal Research Center, Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210061, China
F. Xing
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science and Technology, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu 225009, China
H. L. Wang
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210014, China
H. L. Huan
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Science, Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210014, China
Y. X. Xu
Affiliation:
College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, Jiangsu 210095, China
*
†E-mail: xing_gd@jaas.ac.cn
Get access

Abstract

Compared with conventional identification methods, DNA-based genetic approaches such as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and satellites are much more reliable for pig identification and meat traceability. In this study, multiallelic amplification fragments with multiple SNPs, incorporating the advantages of both SNPs and microsatellites, were explored for the first time for pig identification and meat traceability. Primer pairs for multiallelic fragments and their optimal SNPs were successfully selected and used for identification of individuals from Suzhong and Duroc populations. Meanwhile, the combined panel of the above mentioned primer pairs together with their optimal SNPs for Suzhong and/or Duroc pigs were validated for identification of the hybrids (Suzhong×Duroc). Therefore, we have successfully selected multiallelic amplification fragments with multiple SNPs to identify pigs and their meat samples from Suzhong, Duroc or their hybrids. Our study demonstrates that our method is more powerful for pig identification or meat traceability than SNPs or microsatellites.

Keywords

pig identificationmeat traceabilityamplification fragmentsingle nucleotide polymorphismmicrosatellite
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 9 , September 2018 , pp. 1785 - 1791
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

a

Present address: Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, 100101, China.

References

Britt, AG, Bell, CM, Evers, K and Paskin, R 2013. Linking live animals and products: traceability. Scientific and Technical Review 32, 571–582.Google Scholar
Brookes, AJ 1999. The essence of SNPs. Gene 234, 177–186.Google Scholar
Chmielewski, R and Swayne, DE 2011. Avian influenza: public health and food safety concerns. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology 2, 37–57.Google Scholar
Dalvit, C, De Marchi, M and Cassandro, M 2007. Genetic traceability of livestock products: a review. Meat Science 77, 437–449.Google Scholar
Disney, WT, Green, JW, Forsythe, KW, Wiemers, JF and Weber, S 2001. Benefit-cost analysis of animal identification for disease prevention and control. Scientific and Technical Review 20, 385–405.Google Scholar
Dorne, JL, Doerge, DR, Vandenbroeck, M, Fink-Gremmels, J, Mennes, W, Knutsen, HK, Vernazza, F, Castle, L, Edler, L and Benford, D 2013. Recent advances in the risk assessment of melamine and cyanuric acid in animal feed. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 270, 218–229.Google Scholar
Fries, R and Durstewitz, G 2001. Digital DNA signatures for animal tagging. Nature Biotechnology 19, 508.Google Scholar
Giuffra, E, Kijas, JM, Amarger, V, Carlborg, O, Jeon, JT and Andersson, L 2000. The origin of the domestic pig: independent domestication and subsequent introgression. Genetics 154, 1785–1791.Google Scholar
Goffaux, F, China, B, Dams, L, Clinquart, A and Daube, G 2005. Development of a genetic traceability test in pig based on single nucleotide polymorphism detection. Forensic Science International 151, 239–247.Google Scholar
Hueston, WD 2013. BSE and variant CJD: emerging science, public pressure and the vagaries of policy-making. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 109, 179–184.Google Scholar
Jacob, CJ, Lok, C, Morley, K and Powell, DA 2011. Government management of two media-facilitated crises involving dioxin contamination of food. Public Understanding of Science 20, 261–269.Google Scholar
Ke, X, Hunt, S, Tapper, W, Lawrence, R, Stavrides, G, Ghori, J, Whittaker, P, Collins, A, Morris, AP, Bentley, D, Cardon, LR and Deloukas, P 2004. The impact of SNP density on fine-scale patterns of linkage disequilibrium. Human Molecular Genetics 13, 577–588.Google Scholar
Lindblad-Toh, K, Winchester, E, Daly, MJ, Wang, DG, Hirschhorn, JN, Laviolette, JP, Ardlie, K, Reich, DE, Robinson, E, Sklar, P, Shah, N, Thomas, D, Fan, JB, Gingeras, T, Warrington, J, Patil, N, Hudson, TJ and Lander, ES 2000. Large-scale discovery and genotyping of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the mouse. Nature Genetics 24, 381–386.Google Scholar
Mazzanti, G, Daniele, C, Boatto, G, Manca, G, Brambilla, G and Loizzo, A 2003. New beta-adrenergic agonists used illicitly as growth promoters in animal breeding: chemical and pharmacodynamic studies. Toxicology 187, 91–99.Google Scholar
Nicoloso, L, Crepaldi, P, Mazza, R, Ajmone-Marsan, P and Negrini, R 2013. Recent advance in DNA-based traceability and authentication of livestock meat PDO and PGI products. Recent Patents on Food, Nutrition & Agriculture 5, 9–18.Google Scholar
Peelman, LJ, Mortiaux, F, Van Zeveren, A, Dansercoer, A, Mommens, G, Coopman, F, Bouquet, Y, Burny, A, Renaville, R and Portetelle, D 1998. Evaluation of the genetic variability of 23 bovine microsatellite markers in four Belgian cattle breeds. Animal Genetics 29, 161–167.Google Scholar
Ramos, AM, Megens, HJ, Crooijmans, RP, Schook, LB and Groenen, MA 2011. Identification of high utility SNPs for population assignment and traceability purposes in the pig using high-throughput sequencing. Animal Genetics 42, 613–620.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Ramirez, R, Gonzalez-Cordova, AF and Vallejo-Cordoba, B 2011. Review: Authentication and traceability of foods from animal origin by polymerase chain reaction-based capillary electrophoresis. Analytica Chimica Acta 685, 120–126.Google Scholar
Sun, YV, Levin, AM, Boerwinkle, E, Robertson, H and Kardia, SL 2006. A scan statistic for identifying chromosomal patterns of SNP association. Genetic Epidemiology 30, 627–635.Google Scholar
Weller, JI, Seroussi, E and Ron, M 2006. Estimation of the number of genetic markers required for individual animal identification accounting for genotyping errors. Animal Genetics 37, 387–389.Google Scholar