Cytogenetic screening of a Canadian swine breeding nucleus using a newly developed karyotyping method named oligo-banding.
Journal
Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE
ISSN: 1297-9686
Titre abrégé: Genet Sel Evol
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9114088
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jul 2023
10 Jul 2023
Historique:
received:
23
01
2023
accepted:
23
06
2023
medline:
12
7
2023
pubmed:
11
7
2023
entrez:
10
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The frequency of chromosomal rearrangements in Canadian breeding boars has been estimated at 0.91 to 1.64%. These abnormalities are widely recognized as a potential cause of subfertility in livestock production. Since artificial insemination is practiced in almost all intensive pig production systems, the use of elite boars carrying cytogenetic defects that have an impact on fertility can lead to major economic losses. To avoid keeping subfertile boars in artificial insemination centres and spreading chromosomal defects within populations, cytogenetic screening of boars is crucial. Different techniques are used for this purpose, but several issues are frequently encountered, i.e. environmental factors can influence the quality of results, the lack of genomic information outputted by these techniques, and the need for prior cytogenetic skills. The aim of this study was to develop a new pig karyotyping method based on fluorescent banding patterns. The use of 207,847 specific oligonucleotides generated 96 fluorescent bands that are distributed across the 18 autosomes and the sex chromosomes. Tested alongside conventional G-banding, this oligo-banding method allowed us to identify four chromosomal translocations and a rare unbalanced chromosomal rearrangement that was not detected by conventional banding. In addition, this method allowed us to investigate chromosomal imbalance in spermatozoa. The use of oligo-banding was found to be appropriate for detecting chromosomal aberrations in a Canadian pig nucleus and its convenient design and use make it an interesting tool for livestock karyotyping and cytogenetic studies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The frequency of chromosomal rearrangements in Canadian breeding boars has been estimated at 0.91 to 1.64%. These abnormalities are widely recognized as a potential cause of subfertility in livestock production. Since artificial insemination is practiced in almost all intensive pig production systems, the use of elite boars carrying cytogenetic defects that have an impact on fertility can lead to major economic losses. To avoid keeping subfertile boars in artificial insemination centres and spreading chromosomal defects within populations, cytogenetic screening of boars is crucial. Different techniques are used for this purpose, but several issues are frequently encountered, i.e. environmental factors can influence the quality of results, the lack of genomic information outputted by these techniques, and the need for prior cytogenetic skills. The aim of this study was to develop a new pig karyotyping method based on fluorescent banding patterns.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The use of 207,847 specific oligonucleotides generated 96 fluorescent bands that are distributed across the 18 autosomes and the sex chromosomes. Tested alongside conventional G-banding, this oligo-banding method allowed us to identify four chromosomal translocations and a rare unbalanced chromosomal rearrangement that was not detected by conventional banding. In addition, this method allowed us to investigate chromosomal imbalance in spermatozoa.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The use of oligo-banding was found to be appropriate for detecting chromosomal aberrations in a Canadian pig nucleus and its convenient design and use make it an interesting tool for livestock karyotyping and cytogenetic studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37430194
doi: 10.1186/s12711-023-00819-w
pii: 10.1186/s12711-023-00819-w
pmc: PMC10332092
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
47Subventions
Organisme : Ministère de l'Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l'Alimentation
ID : IA119065
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet. 1971 Oct 30;2(7731):971-2
pubmed: 4107917
Anim Genet. 2004 Feb;35(1):58-62
pubmed: 14731232
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2009;126(3):271-80
pubmed: 20068298
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Dec 26;109(52):21301-6
pubmed: 23236188
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2008;121(1):7-9
pubmed: 18544919
Genetics. 2015 Jul;200(3):771-9
pubmed: 25971668
Genet Sel Evol. 2002 May-Jun;34(3):389-406
pubmed: 12081804
Genome. 1994 Apr;37(2):280-8
pubmed: 8200516
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2008;120(1-2):112-6
pubmed: 18467833
Brief Bioinform. 2021 Sep 2;22(5):
pubmed: 33634311
Hereditas. 1995;122(2):153-62
pubmed: 7558883
Genet Sel Evol. 2007 Sep-Oct;39(5):583-97
pubmed: 17897598
Front Cell Dev Biol. 2016 Sep 05;4:89
pubmed: 27656642
Genet Sel Evol. 2016 Sep 12;48(1):66
pubmed: 27620715
Cancers (Basel). 2018 Jan 08;10(1):
pubmed: 29316705
Vet World. 2018 Nov;11(10):1371-1375
pubmed: 30532488
Anim Genet. 2002 Feb;33(1):69-71
pubmed: 11849141
Hum Mol Genet. 1993 May;2(5):505-12
pubmed: 8518787
J Hered. 1998 Mar-Apr;89(2):136-42
pubmed: 9542161
Front Plant Sci. 2019 Nov 20;10:1503
pubmed: 31824534
BMC Genomics. 2023 Mar 23;24(1):142
pubmed: 36959567
Genome Res. 2016 Jan;26(1):130-9
pubmed: 26560630
Can J Genet Cytol. 1975 Mar;17(1):81-92
pubmed: 48411
Experientia. 1980 Dec 15;36(12):1356-7
pubmed: 6162668
Genetica. 2010 Oct;138(9-10):951-7
pubmed: 20680404
Genet Sel Evol. 2004 Jan-Feb;36(1):123-37
pubmed: 14713414
Genetics. 2018 Feb;208(2):513-523
pubmed: 29242292
Genome Res. 2001 Jun;11(6):1086-94
pubmed: 11381034
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Mar 6;115(10):E2183-E2192
pubmed: 29463736
Exp Cell Res. 1968 Jan;49(1):219-22
pubmed: 5640698
Sex Dev. 2017;11(1):46-51
pubmed: 27974725
Gigascience. 2020 Jun 1;9(6):
pubmed: 32543654
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2014;142(1):21-7
pubmed: 24029030
Anim Genet. 2017 Aug;48(4):395-403
pubmed: 28497848
Mol Reprod Dev. 1995 Sep;42(1):89-93
pubmed: 8562056
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2017;153(3):158-164
pubmed: 29262412
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2008;120(1-2):26-41
pubmed: 18467823
Nat Commun. 2019 Apr 9;10(1):1636
pubmed: 30967549
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2011;132(4):248-54
pubmed: 21178330
Hereditas. 1995;122(3):257-67
pubmed: 8537241
Methods Mol Biol. 2019;2038:167-180
pubmed: 31407284
PLoS Genet. 2021 Jul 28;17(7):e1009700
pubmed: 34319984
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Feb 17;106(7):2289-94
pubmed: 19171886
Hereditas. 1988;109(2):151-7
pubmed: 3230021
Reprod Domest Anim. 2019 Oct;54 Suppl 4:98-101
pubmed: 31625227
Theriogenology. 2010 Jul 1;74(1):67-74
pubmed: 20171726
Anim Reprod Sci. 2010 Jun;119(3-4):235-43
pubmed: 20149563
Hum Reprod Update. 1997 Sep-Oct;3(5):441-52
pubmed: 9528909
Nat Commun. 2015 May 12;6:7147
pubmed: 25962338
Elife. 2019 May 14;8:
pubmed: 31084706
Science. 2013 Dec 20;342(6165):1516-7
pubmed: 24357320
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 14;9(4):e94752
pubmed: 24733454
Mol Reprod Dev. 1999 Aug;53(4):407-12
pubmed: 10398416
Vet Rec. 2004 May 22;154(21):659-61
pubmed: 15198314
Heredity (Edinb). 2012 Jan;108(1):68-74
pubmed: 22086078
Cytogenet Genome Res. 2016;149(4):304-311
pubmed: 27710956
Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2009;47(4):663-6
pubmed: 20430736
Anim Genet. 1995 Oct;26(5):293-8
pubmed: 7486245
Genes (Basel). 2019 Sep 30;10(10):
pubmed: 31575040
PLoS One. 2008 May 14;3(5):e2167
pubmed: 18478113
J Vis Exp. 2009 Sep 01;(31):
pubmed: 19724245
Cells. 2021 Aug 06;10(8):
pubmed: 34440769
BMC Evol Biol. 2011 May 13;11:124
pubmed: 21569527