Identification of meat quality-related differentially methylated regions in the DNA of the longissimus dorsi muscle in pig

References

• Hofmann K. pH-A quality criterion for meat. Fleischwirtschaft. 1988;68:67–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seideman SC, Cross HR, Smith GC, Durland PR. Factors associated with fresh meat color: a review. J Food Quality. 1984;6(3):211–237.
   Google Scholar
• Newbold RP, Harris PV. The effect of pre-rigor changes on meat tenderness. A review. J Food Science. 1972;37(3):337–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez X, Tornberg E. A review of the causes of variation in muscle glycogen content and ultimate pH in pigs. J Muscle Foods. 1991;2(3):209–235.
   Google Scholar
• Lei HG, Shen LY, Zhang SH, et al. Comparison of the meat quality, post-mortem muscle energy metabolism, and the expression of glycogen synthesis-related genes in three pig crossbreeds. Anim Prod Sci. 2015;55(4):501–507.
   Google Scholar
• Te Pas MFW, Keuning E, Hulsegge B, Hoving-Bolink AH, Evans G, Mulder HA. Longissimus muscle transcriptome profiles related to carcass and meat quality traits in fresh meat Piétrain carcasses. J Anim Sci. 2010;88(12):4044–4055.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Te Pas M, Kruijt L, Pierzchala M, et al. Identification of proteomic biomarkers in M. Longissimus dorsi as potential predictors of pork quality. Meat Sci.2013;95(3):679–687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Razin A, Riggs AD. DNA methylation and gene function. Science. 1980;210(4470):604–610.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friso S, Choi SW. Gene-nutrient interactions and DNA methylation. J Nutr. 2002;132(8 Suppl):2382S–2387S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lienhard M, Grimm C, Morkel M, Herwig R, Chavez L. MEDIPS: genome-wide differential coverage analysis of sequencing data derived from DNA enrichment experiments. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(2):284–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg AD, Allis CD, Bernstein E. Epigenetics: a landscape takes shape. Cell. 2007;128(4):635–638.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bang WY, Kim SW, Kwon SG, et al. Swine liver methylomes of Berkshire, Duroc and Landrace breeds by MeDIPS. Anim Genet. 2013;44(4):463–466.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li M, Wu H, Luo Z, et al. An atlas of DNA methylomes in porcine adipose and muscle tissues. Nat Commun. 2012;3:850.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang C, Zhang M, Niu W, et al. Analysis of DNA methylation in various swine tissues. PLoS One. 2011;6(1):e16229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu X, Gao Y, Feng C, et al. Advanced technologies for genomic analysis in farm animals and its application for QTL mapping. Genetica. 2009;136(2):371–386.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf JB, Hager R, Cheverud JM. Genomic imprinting effects on complex traits: a phenotype-based perspective. Epigenetics. 2008;3(6):295–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freking BA, Murphy SK, Wylie AA, et al. Identification of the single base change causing the callipyge muscle hypertrophy phenotype, the only known example of polar overdominance in mammals. Genome Res. 2002;12(10):1496–1506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Koning DJ, Rattink AP, Harlizius B, Van Arendonk JAM, Brascamp EW, Groenen M. Genome-wide scan for body composition in pigs reveals important role of imprinting. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97(14):7947–7950.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeon JT, Carlborg Ö, Törnsten A, et al. A paternally expressed QTL affecting skeletal and cardiac muscle mass in pigs maps to the IGF2 locus. Nat Genet. 1999;21(2):157–158.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Laere A-S, Nguyen M, Braunschweig M, et al. A regulatory mutation in IGF2 causes a major QTL effect on muscle growth in the pig. Nature. 2003;425(6960):832.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitelaw E, Martin D. Retrotransposons as epigenetic mediators of phenotypic variation in mammals. Nat Genet. 2001;27(4):361.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bendall JR, Swatland HJ. A review of the relationships of pH with physical aspects of pork quality. Meat Sci. 1988;24(2):85–126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dransfield E. Modelling post-mortem tenderisation-IV: role of calpains and calpastatin in conditioning. Meat Sci. 1993;34(2):217–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maunakea AK, Nagarajan RP, Bilenky M, et al. Conserved role of intragenic DNA methylation in regulating alternative promoters. Nature. 2010;466(7303):253
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang X, Han H, De Carvalho DD, Lay FD, Jones PA, Liang G. Gene body methylation can alter gene expression and is a therapeutic target in cancer. Cancer Cell. 2014;26(4):577–590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao S, Hulsegge B, Harders FL, et al. Functional analysis of inter-individual transcriptome differential expression in pig longissimus muscle. J Anim Breed Genet. 2013;130(1):72–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sayd T, Morzel M, Chambon C, et al. Proteome analysis of the sarcoplasmic fraction of pig semimembranosus muscle: implications on meat color development. J Agric Food Chem. 2006;54(7):2732–2737.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guillemin N, Bonnet M, Jurie C, Picard B. Functional analysis of beef tenderness. J Proteomics. 2011;75(2):352–365.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu Y, Xu H, Li Z, et al. Comparison of the genome-wide DNA methylation profiles between fast-growing and slow-growing broilers. PloS One. 2013;8(2):e56411.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jin L, Jiang Z, Xia Y, et al. Genome-wide DNA methylation changes in skeletal muscle between young and middle-aged pigs. BMC Genomics. 2014;15(1):653.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar