The Single and Combined Effect of <i>MC4R</i> and <i>GH</i> Genes on Productive Traits of Pigs

Abstract

The aim of our work is to identify the single and combined effect of MC4R and GH polymorphism genes on growth and reproduction traits of pigs. The study was carried out on 204 crossbred F1 females (♀Landrace х ♂Large White) of the Breeding Farm in Russia. The analyzed productive traits were: The number of Days to 100-kg (Days to 100 kg), Length of Body (LB), Backfat Thickness (BF) and Number of piglets Born Alive (NBA). The G1426A of MC4R and G316A of GH polymorphism were determined by PCR-RFLP method. The results showed a significant additive effect of MC4R (G1426A) on all analyzed traits and dominant effect on LB and NBA. With better Days to 100 kg associated genotype AA/MC4R, but the best indicators LB, BF and NBA installed for genotype GG/MC4R. The single effect of GH was determined to BF (dominant effect) and NBA (additive effect). The effect of genotype AG/GH on BF was observed in combination with genotypes of MC4R. In our studies we observed only six combinations of MC4R and GH genes instead of nine theoretically expected. The detected genotypes were following: AA/MC4R -AG/GH, AA/MC4R -GG/GH, AG/MC4R -AA/GH, AG/MC4R -AG/GH, AG/MC4R -GG/GH, GG/MC4R -GG/GH. The combination effect is defined for genotype AA/MC4R with genotypes of GH. The best means for all studied productivity traits were observed for the combination AA/MC4R-AG/GH. The combined effect of genotype AG/MC4R with genotypes of GH was not identified, but it was observed independently influence of MC4R on Days to 100 kg and NBA and GH on BF. The genotype GG/MC4R was detected only in combination with GG/GH genotype, which does not allow evaluating the combination effect of other GH genotypes.

Possible effects of the MC4RAsp298Asn polymorphism on pig production traits under ad libitum versus restricted feeding

“…To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to compare the effect of the MC4R Asp298Asn polymorphism on porcine production traits between the two feeding levels. Previous studies regarding this SNP examined mainly pigs fed ad libitum (Fontanesi et al, 2013; Meidtner et al, 2006; Muñoz et al, 2011; Piórkowska et al, 2010; Salajpal et al, 2009; Stachowiak et al, 2006; van den Broeke et al, 2015; Van den Maagdenberg et al, 2007), did not specify feed ration, or did not include it in the analysis (Getmantseva et al, 2017; Kim, Larsen, & Rothschild, 2000; Kim, Larsen, Short, et al, 2000; Kwon et al, 2015). Dosed feeding occurred in the population studied by Dvořáková et al (2011) but only as a combined effect with a crossbred combination.…”

“…mainly pigs fed ad libitum (Fontanesi et al, 2013;Meidtner et al, 2006;Muñoz et al, 2011;Piórkowska et al, 2010;Salajpal et al, 2009;Stachowiak et al, 2006;van den Broeke et al, 2015;Van den Maagdenberg et al, 2007), did not specify feed ration, or did not include it in the analysis (Getmantseva et al, 2017;Kim, Larsen, Short, et al, 2000;Kwon et al, 2015). Dosed feeding occurred in the population studied by Dvořáková al.…”

“…These findings may be the physiological cause for the results obtained by some authors that allele A led to an increase in feed intake and fat deposition. Significant associations between genotype and average daily gain, backfat thickness, lean muscle content (Getmantseva et al, 2017; Houston et al, 2004; Roh et al, 2012; Van den Maagdenberg et al, 2007), and boar taint (Schroyen et al, 2015; van den Broeke et al, 2015) were found.…”