Open Access

Large-scale sequencing based on full-length-enriched cDNA libraries in pigs: contribution to annotation of the pig genome draft sequence

  • Hirohide Uenishi1, 2, 3Email author,
  • Takeya Morozumi3, 4,
  • Daisuke Toki3, 4,
  • Tomoko Eguchi-Ogawa1, 3,
  • Lauretta A Rund5 and
  • Lawrence B Schook5
BMC Genomics201213:581

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-13-581

Received: 12 December 2011

Accepted: 9 August 2012

Published: 15 November 2012

Abstract

Background

Along with the draft sequencing of the pig genome, which has been completed by an international consortium, collection of the nucleotide sequences of genes expressed in various tissues and determination of entire cDNA sequences are necessary for investigations of gene function. The sequences of expressed genes are also useful for genome annotation, which is important for isolating the genes responsible for particular traits.

Results

We performed a large-scale expressed sequence tag (EST) analysis in pigs by using 32 full-length-enriched cDNA libraries derived from 28 kinds of tissues and cells, including seven tissues (brain, cerebellum, colon, hypothalamus, inguinal lymph node, ovary, and spleen) derived from pigs that were cloned from a sow subjected to genome sequencing. We obtained more than 330,000 EST reads from the 5′-ends of the cDNA clones. Comparison with human and bovine gene catalogs revealed that the ESTs corresponded to at least 15,000 genes. cDNA clones representing contigs and singlets generated by assembly of the EST reads were subjected to full-length determination of inserts. We have finished sequencing 31,079 cDNA clones corresponding to more than 12,000 genes. Mapping of the sequences of these cDNA clones on the draft sequence of the pig genome has indicated that the clones are derived from about 15,000 independent loci on the pig genome.

Conclusions

ESTs and cDNA sequences derived from full-length-enriched libraries are valuable for annotation of the draft sequence of the pig genome. This information will also contribute to the exploration of promoter sequences on the genome and to molecular biology-based analyses in pigs.

Keywords

Sus scrofa Full-length cDNA Sequencing Genome annotation

Background

The pig is the world's most frequently consumed meat animal, and its genetic improvement, particularly in terms of productivity and meat quality, is of interest to livestock science[1]. To date, intensive genetic improvement of livestock animals has been conducted by using classical selection and mating, but genomic information is required for further improvement. Improvements in aspects of the rearing management of pigs, such as feeding and hygiene control, have to be based on knowledge obtained from physiological studies. Moreover, the pig is unique among livestock in that it is very useful in biomedical research because of the structural and size similarities of its organs (particularly cardiovascular and dermal) to those of humans[24]. Improvement in the breeding and rearing of pigs with the help of molecular genetics and physiology, as well as the use of pigs as biomedical model animals, requires fundamental information on pig molecular biology, particularly in terms of the genome and genes.

Recently, the International Swine Genome Sequencing Consortium (SGSC) completed its draft sequencing of the pig genome; these sequences will form the basis of further investigations of pig molecular biology[57]. Sequencing of the pig genome will accelerate the development of genetic markers to improve breeds and populations and give basic information on the genes encoded on the genome[8]. However, genes cannot be precisely localized on the genome solely from information on the genome sequence. Determination of precise sequences, structures, and locations requires information on the sequences of expressed genes per se[9]. The locations and structures of genes on the pig genome are now being explored by using automated systems or by manual inspection by annotators using the Otterlace system of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute to add information to databases such as Vertebrate Genome Annotation (VEGA)[1012]. The sequences of expressed genes are also useful for genome annotation, which is important for isolating the genes responsible for particular traits.

Expressed sequence tag (EST) analyses have been conducted by many research groups in pigs and other organisms. More than 1,600,000 pig ESTs have been accumulated and registered in the public nucleotide databases, and several attempts at transcriptome analysis using next-generation DNA sequencing (NGS) have been made[1315]. Most of the cDNA libraries constructed by using traditional methods do not cover the transcription start sites, because the limitations of cloning techniques can cause incomplete synthesis of full-length cDNA. On the other hand, the sequences of transcripts obtained by using NGS alone are reconstructed by the compilation of short reads and do not directly reflect the actual structure of the mRNA; this may be problematic in considering the alternative splicing products that are actually expressed in the tissues[16]. As far as possible, it is therefore important to clone full-length mRNA transcripts in order to collect gene expression data and use these data in further analyses of expressed genes and of genome annotation in pigs[1719]. cDNA clones carrying full-length transcripts have additional benefits—they can be used for protein production in vitro and for exploring promoter sequences on the genome.

So far we have conducted EST analysis and sequencing of entire mRNA transcripts in pigs by using full-length-enriched cDNA libraries. Here, we outline the data we have collected and the advantages of their use, particularly in genome annotation of the draft sequence of the pig genome.

Results and discussion

Pig ESTs based on full-length-enriched cDNA libraries

We have constructed 32 cDNA libraries for 28 different tissues and cell populations by using cloning of cap-structured mRNA[20, 21] or the SMART method[22], and we have accumulated 330,707 ESTs from 5′-ends (Table1) including previously reported 162,631 ESTs in our pig expressed gene database[18, 19]. The ESTs thus obtained were assembled into 17,183 contigs consisting of 209,779 ESTs, with 120,928 singlets remaining. The contig containing the largest number of ESTs carried 4111 ESTs with marked similarity to tubulin α1 genes. The genes encoding α-tubulin are extremely similar to each other; therefore, the ESTs encoding α-tubulins were assembled into the same contigs. On the other hand, about 90% of the contigs contained fewer than 20 ESTs (Figure1), showing that the majority of the ESTs were based on virtually unbiased mRNA sequences. High-quality EST reads have been registered in the public nucleotide database [DDBJ:BP137499–BP173623, BP433030–BP464980, BW954997–BW985219, CJ000001–CJ039835, DB781565–DB806061, FS639971–FS656010, FS656544–FS722296, and HX201766–HX247044].
Table 1

Pig cDNA libraries, ESTs, and completely sequenced cDNA clones

Library name

Method of library construction

Tissue/cell

Origina

Vector

ESTs

Sequenced cDNA

 

In contigs

In singlets

Total

Clones

Mapped on Sscrofa10.2

Loci

 

ADR01

Oligo-capping

Adrenal gland

LWD (LWD2)

pCMVFL3

6490

3188

9678

901

861

782

 

AMP01

SMART

Alveolar macrophage

LWD (LWD7)

pDNR-LIB

5459

3704

9163

1416

1345

930

 

BFLT1

Oligo-capping

Brain (frontal lobe)

Duroc (2-14C)

pME18S

8104

5678

13,782

991

953

859

 

BKFL1

SMART

Backfat

Landrace (L2)

pDNR-LIB

1557

7920

9477

453

418

404

 

BMWN1

Vector-capping

Bone marrow

NIBS miniature

pGCAP10

5981

2492

8473

148

133

124

 

CBLT1

Vector-capping

Cerebellum

Duroc (2-14C)

pGCAP10

6082

3054

9136

0

0

0

 

CLNT1

Oligo-capping

Colon

Duroc (2-14C)

pME18S

6580

6782

13,362

537

512

365

 

DCI01

SMART

Immature dendritic cells

Landrace (L1)

pDNR-LIB

5953

4486

10,439

887

841

748

 

HTMT1

Vector-capping

Hypothalamus

Duroc (2-14C)

pGCAP10

8063

5278

13,341

1663

1474

1264

 

ILNT1

Vector-capping

Inguinal lymph node

Duroc (2-14C)

pGCAP10

6321

2658

8979

0

0

0

 

ITT01

Oligo-capping

Intestine

LWD (LWD2)

pCMVFL3

7272

2475

9747

1265

1206

1037

 

KDN01

Oligo-capping

Kidney

LWD (LWD8)

pME18S

5873

3235

9108

748

723

663

 

LNG01

Oligo-capping

Lung

LWD (LWD3)

pCMVFL3

5186

3859

9045

1331

1250

1061

 

LVR01

Oligo-capping

Liver

LWD (LWD4)

pCMVFL3

7199

1815

9014

779

741

653

 

LVRM1

Oligo-capping

Liver

Meishan

pCMVFL3

13,881

5051

18,932

1844

1760

1372

 

MLN01

Oligo-capping

Mesenteric lymph node

LWD (LWD2)

pCMVFL3

6443

3250

9693

1176

1099

902

 

MLTL1

SMART

Longissimus muscle

Landrace (L2)

pDNR-LIB

3577

4892

8469

413

388

292

 

OVR01

Oligo-capping

Ovary

LWD (LWD1)

pCMVFL3

6537

2828

9365

1416

1356

1226

 

OVRM1

Oligo-capping

Ovary

Meishan

pCMVFL3

12,471

7071

19,542

3309

3149

2665

 

OVRT1

Oligo-capping

Ovary

Duroc (2-14C)

pME18S

9516

4340

13,856

819

790

728

 

PBL01

Oligo-capping

Peripheral blood lymphocytes

LWD (LWD5)

pCMVFL3

6652

3262

9914

957

908

732

 

PCT01

Oligo-capping

Placenta

LWD (LWD9)

pME18S

2175

1115

3290

161

150

142

 

PST01

Oligo-capping

Prostate

LWD (LWD10)

pME18S

6813

2329

9142

691

654

596

 

PTG01

Oligo-capping

Pituitary gland

LWD (LWD4)

pCMVFL3

4281

5628

9909

864

826

790

 

SKNB1

Oligo-capping

Skin

Berkshire

pME18S

4894

3363

8257

687

630

534

 

SMG01

Oligo-capping

Submaxillary gland

LWD (LWD2)

pCMVFL3

6944

2680

9624

458

430

361

 

SPL01

Oligo-capping

Spleen

LWD (LWD1)

pCMVFL3

6793

2811

9604

1457

1397

1207

 

SPLT1

Vector-capping

Spleen

Duroc (2-14C)

pGCAP10

6037

2734

8771

0

0

0

 

TCH01

Oligo-capping

Trachea

LWD (LWD3)

pCMVFL3

5151

3658

8809

1412

1345

1087

 

TES01

Oligo-capping

Testis

LWD (LWD6)

pME18S

7112

2962

10,074

697

669

466

 

THY01

Oligo-capping

Thymus

LWD (LWD1)

pCMVFL3

7586

3704

11,290

2158

2066

1620

 

UTR01

Oligo-capping

Uterus

LWD (LWD1)

pCMVFL3

6796

2626

9422

1441

1356

1180

 

Total

    

209,779

120,928

330,707

31,079

29,430

13,894

(2993)b

Thirty-two cDNA libraries constructed with pig tissues and cell populations were used to generate expressed sequence tags (ESTs). Twenty-three libraries were constructed by using the oligo-capping method[21], and five were constructed by using the vector-capping[20] method. Four libraries were constructed by using the SMART method (Clontech, Palo Alto, CA, USA)[22]. ESTs in contigs are shown, as are those that had a ≥100-bp stretch of Phred quality value ≥20 and were not involved in contigs (“In singlets”). Numbers of cDNA clones that were completely sequenced (31,079 in total) are also shown. Completely sequenced cDNA clones derived from pigs cloned from a female subjected to genome sequencing by the International Swine Genome Sequencing Consortium are classified by library.

a Origins are indicated as pig breeds or lines. Different animals in the same breed are designated as described in parentheses. LWD is (Landrace × Large White) × Duroc. Duroc (2-14C) designates a Duroc individual cloned from a female pig subjected to draft genome sequencing[57].

b Loci repeated among clones derived from different libraries were removed.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2164-13-581/MediaObjects/12864_2011_Article_4358_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Distribution of EST reads in contigs. Contigs are ordered by the numbers of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) they contained. There were 6740 contigs carrying two ESTs and 1084 contigs carrying more than 30 ESTs. There were 15,432 contigs consisting of fewer than 20 ESTs.

Genes and chromosomal locations corresponding to assemblies generated from pig ESTs

BLAST similarity analysis[23] of the nucleotide sequences of the assemblies (contigs and singlets) against the mRNA sequences of RefSeq (release 49; 13 September 2011) at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI)[24] revealed that the cDNA sequences corresponded to 13,691 unique human genes (Table2). Correspondence of the assemblies to the functions of human genes according to the Gene Ontology terms[25] demonstrated that the EST collection covered a broad range of porcine expressed genes (Figure2 and3). About three-fourths of the assemblies showing obvious similarity to protein sequences were estimated to contain start codons, indicating the high efficiency of cloning of entire mRNA molecules by the construction of full-length-enriched cDNA libraries (Table2). Ideally, almost all of the clones in the full-length-enriched cDNA libraries would contain entire coding sequences (CDSs). However, at the cloning step in the procedure of cDNA library construction, short transcripts that do not cover entire CDSs may be cloned preferentially to those containing functional CDSs. Degradation of RNA before library construction may also hamper the cloning of intact cDNA sequences in the libraries. Even though there are some incomplete transcripts in the ESTs, full-length-enriched cDNA libraries are much more valuable for determining the correct structures of functional mRNA than are cDNA libraries constructed by using normal methods, because the latter rarely yield intact full-length cDNAs[26].
Table 2

Correspondence to mammalian genes and estimated efficiencies of cloning of start codons of EST assemblies

 

Unique Gene ID (without HomoloGene ID)

Unique HomoloGene ID

Assemblies matched to protein sequences

Assemblies estimated to include start codons

 

Contigs

Singlets

 

Contigs

Singlets

Human

13,691 (754)

12,911

64,011

12,056

51,955

47,229

9,635

37,594

Mouse

12,955 (730)

12,137

63,444

12,028

51,416

45,539

9,588

35,951

Cattle

13,445 (1935)

11,341

63,718

12,035

51,683

47,118

9,634

37,484

Dog

12,293 (763)

11,410

62,815

11,871

50,944

37,193

8,090

29,103

Pig

14,275

 

63,169

11,917

51,252

46,063

9,396

36,667

Numbers of genes that had unique NCBI Gene IDs and corresponded to contigs and singlets generated by assembly of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) are indicated. Also shown are the numbers that had unique Gene IDs in the NCBI HomoloGene database (a database of orthologs among species) and corresponded to the contigs and singlets generated. Numbers in parentheses indicate numbers of gene IDs that had no corresponding HomoloGene IDs. HomoloGene IDs in pigs are not indicated, because there is no HomoloGene ID database for pig genes.

EST assemblies were estimated to contain start codons if the length upstream of the matches (BLAST score >50) in the assemblies was greater than that between the start base of the coding sequence and the matched region of the corresponding gene. Numbers of assemblies (contigs and singlets) corresponding to protein sequences in humans, mice, cattle, dogs, and pigs are also shown.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2164-13-581/MediaObjects/12864_2011_Article_4358_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Classification of ESTs according to Gene Ontology. Proportions of expressed sequence tags (EST) classified according to Gene Ontology terms under the root namespaces (molecular function (A), cellular component (B), and biological process (C)) are indicated for each cDNA library. Classification according to Gene Ontology was conducted by using the similarity of the EST assemblies to human genes and the correspondence between genes and the Gene Ontology terms provided in NCBI Gene (ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/gene/DATA/;[24]). ESTs classified under more than one term in a single namespace are counted redundantly under the respective terms. ESTs not classified under any terms are omitted from this figure.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2164-13-581/MediaObjects/12864_2011_Article_4358_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Correspondence of EST assemblies and cDNA clones to locations on the draft sequence of the pig genome and Gene Ontology. Shown are the numbers of loci that are located on each pig chromosome in the draft sequence of the pig genome (Sscrofa10.2) and that correspond to the EST assemblies (A) and pig cDNA clones (B) sequenced in this study. Orientations of loci are shown by closed bars (pter to qter) and open bars (qter to pter). EST assemblies (C) and pig cDNA clones that were completely sequenced (D) were classified according to the Gene Ontology terms shown under each root namespace (i.e., molecular function, cellular component, and biological process) by using the ontology file as at 31 October 2011. Classification according to Gene Ontology was conducted by using the similarity of cDNA clones to the mRNA sequences of human genes in the NCBI RefSeq (release 49) and the correspondence between genes and Gene Ontology terms provided in NCBI Gene (ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/gene/DATA/ as at 2 November 2011;[24]). The numbers of EST assemblies classified into the three namespaces (molecular function, cellular component, and biological process) were 56,703, 59,098, and 54,610, respectively. The numbers of cDNA clones classified into the three namespaces were 21,332, 22,306, and 20,538, respectively. Assemblies and clones classified under more than one term in a single namespace are counted redundantly under the respective terms. Terms including fewer than 1000 assemblies and clones are indicated as “Others” in the aggregates.

Among the human genes matched to the assemblies, 12,937 corresponded to 12,911 unique NCBI HomoloGene IDs, which are indices of homologs among genomes of different eukaryote species[24]. This covered about two-thirds of all HomoloGene groups in humans (18,431 IDs; release 65). Furthermore, about 2000 additional genes were also included in the ESTs, as estimated from the numbers of genes without HomoloGene IDs (Table2). In total, we estimated that more than 15,000 different genes were included in the ESTs thus obtained. However, the numbers of genes included in the EST assemblies might in fact increase because of gene duplication specifically occurring in the Sus genus.

The EST assemblies were mapped on the latest build of the draft sequence of the pig genome Sscrofa10.2[6]. The entire summed length of chromosomes in the latest draft sequence of the pig genome (Sscrofa10.2) is 2596.6 Mb, and the 4562 scaffolds unplaced on any chromosome are a total of 211.9 Mb long[27]. Among the 17,183 contigs, 16,121 were mapped on pig chromosomes. Among the singlets, 86,464 of 120,928 were mapped on the chromosomes (Table3). The assemblies were mapped to 39,445 different loci on pig autosomes and 1221 different loci on the pig sex chromosomes. In addition, 4463 loci corresponding to the assemblies were detected in scaffold sequences unplaced in any chromosomes (Figure3A and Table3). Mapping of loci corresponding to the EST assemblies on the draft sequence of the pig genome demonstrated that the ESTs were derived from regions throughout the whole chromosomes, and that the density of loci on the chromosomes showed periodic change within the chromosomes ( Additional file1), possibly corresponding to the G- and R-bands of the chromosomes[28]. Although genes expressed ubiquitously in tissues (e.g., the gene encoding tubulin) were frequently observed, we were able to clone pig transcripts in the EST collection derived from more than 40,000 unique loci distributed throughout the whole genome. This shows that our EST resource is valuable for exploring pig gene sequences of interest in various areas of veterinary research.
Table 3

Mapping of pig EST assemblies on pig chromosomes

Chromosome

Forward

Reverse

Total

Contigs

Singlets

Loci

Contigs

Singlets

Loci

Contigs

Singlets

Loci

1

580

3343

1799

594

3346

1798

1174

6689

3597

2

639

2983

1452

646

2855

1365

1285

5838

2817

3

415

2248

1132

472

2574

1299

887

4822

2431

4

435

2049

1013

398

2112

1025

833

4161

2038

5

373

1774

870

375

2007

846

748

3781

1716

6

667

3188

1503

567

2826

1415

1234

6014

2918

7

526

2590

1211

631

3007

1039

1157

5597

2250

8

301

1637

851

215

1434

754

516

3071

1605

9

357

1966

1011

371

2082

1007

728

4048

2018

10

207

1118

555

200

1182

598

407

2300

1153

11

128

762

449

121

855

496

249

1617

945

12

388

2133

869

361

1759

896

749

3892

1765

13

489

2425

1293

515

2467

1321

1004

4892

2614

14

508

2693

1226

523

2716

1175

1031

5409

2401

15

284

1852

893

288

1828

797

572

3680

1690

16

147

817

498

139

894

509

286

1711

1007

17

348

1630

585

215

905

474

563

2535

1059

18

192

964

479

176

1127

479

368

2091

958

X

220

1018

591

216

1165

618

436

2183

1209

Y

4

14

6

1

6

6

5

20

12

Unplaced scaffolds

1077

7726

2251

812

4387

2212

1889

12,113

4463

Total

8285

44,930

20,537

7836

41,534

20,129

16,121

86,464

40,666

Numbers of EST (expressed sequence tag) assemblies and the corresponding independent loci mapped on the pig genome are shown for each chromosome. “Forward” and “Reverse” indicate that the assemblies were aligned on the chromosomes in the orientation from pter to qter or from qter to pter, respectively.

Generation of the collection of pig cDNA clones, and complete sequencing of their inserts

The pig cDNA libraries used for the EST analysis were full-length–enriched libraries, which are ideal for determining the entire sequences of transcripts functioning as protein-encoding mRNA. In parallel with the EST analysis described above, we selected cDNA clones for the sequencing of entire inserts. The cDNA clones located at the forefront position in contigs generated by the assembly were selected for sequencing of the entire inserts, because we considered that they were the best candidates for clones carrying entire transcripts. As the EST analysis progressed, if cDNA clones located upstream of the clones already selected in the contigs appeared, we added these clones into the pipeline for sequencing of the entire inserts. On the other hand, among the singlets that did not join the contigs, there were many clones corresponding to human genes that had no counterparts among the clones selected from the contigs. We also selected these clones to ensure that the cDNA collection included a broad variety of genes. In total, we selected 42,047 clones as candidates for complete sequencing (31,545 clones from contigs and 10,502 clones from singlets).

Selected cDNA clones were sequenced by the primer-walking (PW) method[29]. cDNA clones that were difficult to sequence by PW were subjected to transposon-shotgun sequencing (TPS) with clone pooling[3032]. To date, we have completed the sequencing of the entire inserts of 31,232 clones [DDBJ:AK230469–AK240615, AK343227–AK344223, AK344276–AK352511, and AK389169– AK399513, AK399520–AK401026]. We excluded the clones that had only repetitive sequences such as short or long interspersed nucleotide elements, and obtained 31,079 clones in a result (Table1; 22,853 clones from contigs and 8226 clones from singlets), including 10,147 clones that have already been reported and presented in our cDNA database[19]. Among the candidate clones, 2169 were completely sequenced only by using universal sequencing primers (forward and reverse primers aligned to the vector sequence, and T25V primer). There were 25,629 cDNA clones sequenced by the PW method and 3500 by the TPS method (Table4). The average length of the inserts of the cDNA clones thus sequenced was 1.63 kb. Sequencing by the TPS method effectively found longer inserts of the cDNA clones than by the PW method (Table4), even considering the fact that one of the reasons why TPS was used on difficult-to-sequence clones was their length. The longest inserts of the clones sequenced by the PW and TPS methods were 4653 and 7293 bp, respectively. The TPS method is highly compatible with automation, because it does not require primer design; however, the total amount of sequencing work is much more than the PW method[30, 31]. Therefore, application of TPS may be limited to clones with long inserts or for which many sequencing primers need to be designed.
Table 4

Distributions of lengths of cDNA clones completely sequenced by the primer walking and transposon shotgun sequencing methods

Length (bp)

Sequenced using universal primersa

Primer walking

Transposon shotgun sequencing

Once

Twice

Total

–1000

1174

1956

93

2049

156

1001–1500

928

9062

913

9975

519

1501–2000

67

6201

1843

8044

1058

2001–2500

0

2817

731

3548

766

2501–3000

0

919

428

1347

450

3000–3500

0

48

294

342

286

3501–4000

0

1

85

86

165

4001–

0

0

19

19

100

Total

2169

21,004

4406

25,410

3500

Average (bp)

907.6

1548.3

1959.6

1620.0

2163.3

Lengths of cDNA clones are shown according to the sequencing methods used. Clones sequenced by using the primer walking (PW) method are shown separately according to the number of primer walkings. Clones sequenced by using transposon shotgun sequencing (TPS) include those that were finished by the TPS method after being sequenced by the PW method.

a Clones that were completely sequenced just by using universal primers (forward and reverse primers aligned to the vector sequence, and T25V primer).

Genes corresponding to cDNA clones

BLAST similarity analysis of the inserts of the cDNA clones sequenced against the mRNA sequences of the NCBI RefSeq (release 49) revealed that the cDNA sequences corresponded to 11,298 human genes and more than 10,000 genes in each of mice, cattle, and dogs (Table5). The functions of genes corresponding to more than 20,000 clones could be estimated by their similarity to human genes and classification according to Gene Ontology terms (Figure3D). Among the human genes matched to the cDNA clones, 10,901 corresponded to 10,889 HomoloGene IDs (Table5A); this accounted for 59% of all of the HomoloGene groups of human genes. Notably, more than 1000 genes corresponding to cDNA clones have not been classified in HomoloGene, and there may be duplication of gene loci originally occurring in the pig. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that the cDNA clones that showed no similarity to genes of other species encode genes that are functional in pigs. In total, we estimated that the cDNA thus sequenced represented more than 12,000 pig genes by comparative approach of mRNA sequences. In addition, cDNA clones corresponding to the same HomoloGene ID may be duplicated specifically on the pig genome. Although clarification of the correct number of genes included in our cDNA collection requires the completely sequenced genome sequence of the pig, we estimated the numbers of loci by using the currently publicized draft pig genome sequence (Sscrofa10.2).
Table 5

Mammalian genes corresponding to sequenced cDNA clones

 

Genes corresponding to sequenced cDNA clones

 

Sequenced cDNA clones containing full-length CDSs

 

Unique Gene ID (without HomoloGene ID)

Unique HomoloGene ID

 

Unmapped cDNA clones

 

cDNA clones(with corresponding loci on pig genome)

Unique Gene ID (with corresponding loci on pig genome)

Loci with Gene ID

Gene ID with cDNA clones unmapped on pig genomea

  

Unique Gene ID (without Homolo Gene ID)

Unique HomoloGene ID

 

Human

11,298

 (397)

10,889

 

604

 (31)

572

 

12,498

 (11,904)

5966

 (5509)

5749

276

Mouse

10,688

 (444)

10,197

 

553

 (37)

513

 

12,354

 (11,762)

5597

 (5365)

5567

269

Cattle

10,881

 (1329)

9487

 

568

 (88)

479

 

12,622

 (12,045)

5667

 (5435)

5622

270

Dog

10,082

 (469)

9556

 

522

 (28)

492

 

9642

 (9150)

4188

 (4011)

4200

208

Pig

10,752

   

342

   

11,873

 (11,420)

5244

 (5116)

5343

182

Totalb

        

14,616

 (13,962)

  

6466

 

Numbers of genes that had unique NCBI Gene IDs and corresponded to the sequences of the pig cDNA clones are shown at the left side of the table. Also shown are the numbers that had unique Gene IDs in the NCBI HomoloGene database (a database of orthologs among species) and corresponded to the sequences of pig cDNA clones. The numbers of unique Gene IDs corresponding to sequences of pig cDNA clones that were not mapped at any locations on the draft pig genome sequence (Sscrofa10.2) are also shown. In addition, the numbers of genes that had unique Gene IDs in the NCBI HomoloGene database and corresponded to the sequences of the unmapped pig cDNA clones are indicated. Numbers in parentheses indicate numbers of unique Gene IDs that had no corresponding HomoloGene IDs. Numbers of HomoloGene IDs in pigs are not indicated, because there is no HomoloGene ID database for pig genes. At the right side of the table, The numbers of cDNA clones estimated to contain full-length coding sequences (CDSs) of pig genes by alignment against the protein sequences of humans, mice, cattle, and dogs in the NCBI RefSeq database are shown in the first column. Pig protein sequences registered in RefSeq were used in this analysis. The numbers of unique NCBI Gene IDs corresponding to the cDNA clones and the numbers of loci corresponding to the cDNA clones examined using the draft sequence of the pig genome (Sscrofa10.2) are also indicated (“Loci with Gene ID”).

a We counted the unique NCBI Gene IDs corresponding to cDNA clones that were not mapped on the draft sequence of the pig genome. If the Gene IDs corresponded to cDNA clones both mapped on, and not mapped on, the draft genome sequence, they were counted in both the “Loci with Gene ID” column and the “Gene ID with cDNA unmapped on pig genome” column.

b Redundant cDNA clones corresponding to genes of more than one species were counted without repetition.

Distribution of cDNA clones on the draft sequence of the pig genome

As mentioned above in the Background, the genome annotation process is greatly accelerated by the mapping of cDNA clones on the genomic sequence. We evaluated the usefulness of our collection of pig cDNA clones in genome annotation by mapping the clones onto the latest draft sequence of the pig genome (Sscrofa10.2). Among the 31,079 cDNA clones sequenced, 26,159 were mapped to 12,441 independent loci on the pig chromosomes. There were 12,042 loci mapped on the autosomes and 399 on the sex chromosomes (Figure3B and Table6). In addition, 3271 clones were mapped to 1453 loci on scaffolds that have not been localized on any chromosomes in Sscrofa10.2. Among the 1649 cDNA clones that were not mapped to pig chromosomes, and the unplaced scaffold sequences, 1114 clones corresponded to 604 unique human genes. Inclusion of those unmapped cDNA clones that corresponded to the genes of other mammals yielded a total of more than 600 unique genes corresponding to unmapped cDNA clones (Table5). Taking these findings together, we estimated that our pig cDNA collection includes transcripts derived from about 15,000 different loci on the pig genome.
Table 6

Mapping of the pig cDNA clones sequenced in this study on pig chromosomes

Chromosome

Forward

Reverse

Total

Clones

Loci

Clones

Loci

Clones

Loci

1

1128 (164)

560 (134)

1197 (133)

594 (112)

2325 (297)

1154 (246)

2

1144 (138)

564 (123)

1180 (161)

563 (134)

2324 (299)

1127 (257)

3

744 (97)

380 (87)

871 (121)

468 (99)

1615 (218)

848 (186)

4

748 (88)

366 (71)

793 (96)

385 (81)

1541 (184)

751 (152)

5

710 (86)

310 (63)

685 (77)

313 (65)

1395 (163)

623 (128)

6

1184 (174)

552 (133)

1040 (130)

539 (115)

2224 (304)

1091 (248)

7

1013 (117)

437 (98)

1118 (125)

397 (97)

2131 (242)

834 (195)

8

563 (69)

267 (58)

393 (50)

209 (44)

956 (119)

476 (102)

9

699 (94)

339 (72)

673 (85)

339 (75)

1372 (179)

678 (147)

10

409 (48)

167 (37)

362 (37)

169 (32)

771 (85)

336 (69)

11

225 (26)

119 (25)

237 (22)

129 (20)

462 (48)

248 (45)

12

723 (89)

334 (76)

667 (68)

328 (60)

1390 (157)

662 (136)

13

922 (124)

431 (101)

890 (93)

467 (80)

1812 (217)

898 (181)

14

894 (101)

405 (80)

920 (116)

424 (90)

1814 (217)

829 (170)

15

568 (79)

281 (64)

518 (61)

247 (55)

1086 (140)

528 (119)

16

266 (35)

137 (26)

252 (39)

123 (35)

518 (74)

260 (61)

17

607 (70)

212 (59)

365 (47)

190 (38)

972 (117)

402 (97)

18

325 (32)

144 (29)

354 (38)

151 (30)

679 (70)

295 (59)

X

364 (56)

195 (49)

402 (73)

203 (55)

766 (129)

398 (104)

Y

5 (0)

2 (0)

1 (0)

1 (0)

6 (0)

3 (0)

Unplaced scaffolds

1854 (308)

747 (156)

1417 (162)

706 (135)

3271 (470)

1453 (291)

Total

15,095 (1995)

6949 (1541)

14,335 (1734)

6945 (1452)

29,430 (3729)

13,894 (2993)

Numbers of cDNA clones and the corresponding independent loci mapped on the pig genome are shown for each chromosome. “Forward” and “Reverse” indicate that the cDNA clones are aligned on the chromosomes in the orientation from pter to qter and from qter to pter, respectively. Numbers in parentheses show clones derived from pigs cloned from a female subjected to genome sequencing by the International Swine Genome Sequencing Consortium (Duroc 2–14).

Similar to the human genome, the pig genome is estimated to include 20,000 to 25,000 genes, because the genome size of pig is comparable to that of human. Our sequencing of the cDNA clones therefore covered slightly more than half of the entire gene set of the pig. The reason why thousands of genes were not included in our cDNA resources may be that the libraries were constructed with tissues of animals that were healthy and not subject to stressors such as infection or starvation. Genes that are highly expressed only during acute responses to pathogens or nutritional exhaustion might be difficult to clone in such libraries. In addition, if a gene is rarely expressed in a particular tissue (e.g., if its expression frequency among all the transcripts is less than 0.006%), then the probability that it will fail to be detected in the cloning of 10,000 transcripts will be more than 50%. To increase the number of cloned genes it would be necessary to normalize the libraries or use tissues derived from animals stimulated by particular stressors.

Genes encoded on the genome may be duplicated specifically in particular species but not in others. To detect duplication specifically occurring in the pig genome, we extracted the cDNA sequences with the longest open reading frames (ORFs) from among the clones that we sequenced here for the 12,441 putative loci on the autosomes and sex chromosomes in Sscrofa10.2. The extracted cDNA sequences were compared with human and cattle protein sequences deduced from the NCBI RefSeq (release 49). We estimated that 635 human protein sequences and 709 cattle protein sequences matched more than one putative locus on Sscrofa10.2. Conversely, the total numbers of loci estimated to be duplicated on Sscrofa10.2 in comparison with humans and cattle were 1358 and 1505, respectively. However, most of the potentially duplicated loci encoded shorter ORFs than their counterparts, implying that the loci were only pseudogenes or that they had arisen from the remaining sequencing errors in the genome sequence. Further refinement of the draft sequences of the pig genome will elucidate the duplication of genes occurring in the Sus genus.

The cDNAs thus analyzed were synthesized by reverse transcription using a poly-dT primer; therefore, most of the clones showed canonical mRNA features and had ORFs. Among the 13,894 loci mapped on the chromosomes and scaffolds, the representative (the longest) cDNA clones for 4144 loci showed no correspondence to the genes of humans, cattle, dogs, or mice. However, most of the cDNA clones with no obvious correspondence to the genes of other animals had apparent ORFs, and only 160 clones did not have ORFs for sequences more than 30 amino acids long. The average insert length of these 160 clones was 665 bp, whereas the average for all of the clones was much longer (1631 bp). These “non-coding” transcripts may be transcribed randomly and may have no function, although they may have a certain regulatory function on other protein-coding transcripts.

The draft sequence of the pig genome in its latest build (Sscrofa10.2) corresponds to the bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) clones covering 98% of the physical map of the entire chromosome[5, 6]. In our analysis, about 2% of the unique human genes corresponding to the cDNA sequences were not mapped to any chromosomes or unplaced scaffolds, showing that our estimate of the coverage of the whole genome by the draft sequence was correct. Refinement of the draft sequence of the pig genome will reveal the precise locations on the pig genome of the loci generating those transcripts that we cloned but that were not mapped, or that we mapped only on unplaced scaffolds.

The cDNA libraries that we used included seven libraries constructed by using animals that were cloned from a sow used for draft sequencing of pig genome (Duroc 2–14)[57]. A total of 4010 cDNA clones from four libraries were completely sequenced. Among them, 3729 were mapped to 2993 loci on the pig genome (Table6B). These cDNA clones will be valuable for genome annotation of the draft sequence generated by the SGSC. In addition, comparison of the cDNA sequences of Duroc 2–14 clones with the draft sequences of the pig genome can be used to estimate the sequencing accuracy of the draft sequence and the frequency of RNA editing[33], although polymorphisms among the chromosomes of Duroc 2–14 hinder precise discrimination of such errors and edited bases. We roughly estimated such base changes by aligning cDNA sequences derived from Duroc 2–14 clones with the genome sequences. The region of each cDNA sequence that appeared most aligned was extracted, and the adenosine (A) to guanosine (G) base changes, which reflected the most representative A to I (inosine) RNA editing[34], were counted. To simplify the estimation, we investigated only A-to-G changes flanked by 5-base matches on both sides. Among the cDNAs of Duroc 2–14 clone pigs, 124 carried only A-to-G base changes, which totaled 142. In contrast, 91 cDNAs carried only G-to-A base changes, which totaled 97. Therefore, we estimated that about one-fourth of the inconsistency between G and A in the cDNAs and the draft sequence, respectively, is caused by RNA editing in the pig. Alignment of the 3′-UTR sequences of the cDNAs of Duroc 2–14 clone pigs showed differences of less than 0.4% from the draft genome sequence (data not shown). The differences thus detected included polymorphisms between different chromosomes and bases subjected to RNA editing. Furthermore, more than half of the aligned 3166 3′-UTRs (1883) were completely matched to the draft genome sequence. We therefore estimated that the actual error rate in the draft sequences of the pig genome was much less than 0.4%; the draft sequence was thus reliable.

Coverage of coding sequences by cDNA clones on the pig genome

We expected that the collection of pig cDNA clones that we sequenced would include sequences covering the entire CDSs of pig genes. To estimate the numbers of cDNA clones covering entire CDSs, we investigated the coverage of those protein sequences of humans, mice, cattle, and dogs that showed the greatest similarity to the amino acid sequences deduced from the cDNAs. We also examined the distribution of the cDNA clones considered to cover entire CDSs on the pig chromosomes in the draft genome sequence (Sscrofa10.2). Among the cDNA clones sequenced completely, 14,616 were estimated to contain entire CDSs in their inserts. We estimated that these clones corresponded to 6466 different loci on the pig chromosomes (Table5).

Usefulness of the pig cDNA collection in genome annotation and other applications

The cDNA clones sequenced here were derived from libraries by methods that preferentially cloned intact RNA transcripts. About three-fourths of EST assemblies showing considerable similarity to known genes carrying the beginning of CDSs; we estimated that about half of the cDNA clones that were completely sequenced contained entire CDSs. An outline of the pig genome sequence is currently available, and use of the sequences of these expressed genes should help in precisely identifying the locations of genes on the genome and in determining the exon–intron structures of the genes. Along with the progress made in draft sequencing of the pig genome, automated annotation of the pig genome sequence has been conducted by the pipelines in Pre-Ensembl/Ensembl and publicized through the Pre-Ensembl/Ensembl database[35, 36]. In the automated pipelines, about 30,000 pig cDNA clones were utilized[37]; most of these were derived from our pig cDNA sequencing project. Our data resources on pig-expressed genes have greatly contributed to prediction of the structures of genes on the draft sequence of the pig genome. In addition, the use of pig cDNA sequences that have been completely sequenced accelerates the process of manual refinement of automated genome annotation. Until now, many projects for full-length cDNA sequencing have been conducted in parallel with genome sequencing in eukaryotic species, and the results of these studies have contributed to our knowledge of gene locations and structures in target species such as humans and mice[9, 38]. In fact, the pig cDNA sequences presented here have contributed greatly to the process of annotation of immune-related genes in the draft sequence of the pig genome by the Immune Response Annotation Group[10]. We expect that additional efforts to annotate other groups of pig genes will be accelerated by the use of our pig cDNA sequences.

One of the characteristics of the ESTs and cDNA sequences presented here is that the majority of the sequences were derived from intact mRNA with transcription start sites. This has great merit for exploring promoter sequences on the genome sequence[39]. The consensus sequences bound by transcription factors in the promoter sequences are generally well conserved among species; however, there are many variations in the binding-site sequences of transcription factors, and precise determination of the genomic region of the promoter sequence of each gene is essential for clarifying the efficiency of transcription in cells in response to stimuli[40]. Extraction of the upstream regions of the EST assemblies and cDNA sequences presented here, combined with direct evidence from, for example, ChIP-Seq studies[41], which will be accelerated by using the cDNA sequences for transcription factors in pigs, will enable the construction of a variable database for understanding transcriptional regulation of pig genes. Notably, we were able to completely sequence 1340 pig cDNA clones associated with “nucleic acid binding transcription factor activity,” as classified according to Gene Ontology (GO:0001071) (Figure3D).

Another advantage of this collection of cDNA sequences is its usefulness for investigating alternative splicing events in pig genes. We mapped 29,430 cDNA clones to 13,894 different loci on the pig genome—that is, on average more than two different cDNA clones were derived from a single locus. Future studies should include a detailed exploration of splicing variants by using the cDNA sequences we have sequenced, together with the pig gene sequences presented by other groups.

The cDNA sequences and the ESTs themselves will also be useful in other studies, such as in gene expression analysis and in detecting polymorphisms in pig genes. A number of polymorphisms have been reported in mRNA sequences (particularly in CDSs), and it should be emphasized that there are many polymorphisms in CDSs that affect the functions of the molecules encoded by the genes that carry the polymorphisms. Our explorations of polymorphisms using the cDNA sequences and ESTs presented here have been useful in characterizing the genetic features of pig breeds and populations[18, 42]. We have also investigated polymorphisms in genes encoding pattern-recognition receptors[4346] and have demonstrated that some of the polymorphisms observed so far in commercial pig and wild boar populations truly affect the ligand-recognition ability of the molecules encoded by the genes[4749]. In addition, many ongoing studies are revealing the potential associations of gene polymorphisms with economically important traits in pigs[50]. The use of pig gene sequences, including those presented here, will help greatly in promoting the exploration of polymorphisms that may be candidates for markers for selecting or breeding pigs with distinguished traits[1]. Furthermore, the gene sequences can be used directly to design probes for microarrays. We have developed oligomer microarrays by using sequences derived mainly from the ESTs and cDNA sequences presented here, and we have successfully elucidated the characteristics of changes in gene expression in pig subcutaneous preadipocytes[51]. Designing microarray probes with full-length cDNA sequences has benefits in terms of reliability, because the probes are highly specific to the target genes and there is clear evidence of correspondence between the probes and fully annotated genes. Full-length cDNA sequences will even be valuable in transcriptome analysis with NGS, which will become the mainstream method of expression analysis; these sequences will be useful in determining which short NGS reads belong to gene sequences that truly exert functions in organisms[16].

Conclusions

Here, we demonstrated our attempts to collect pig-expressed genes by EST analysis and sequencing of entire cDNA clones using full-length-enriched cDNA libraries. We have so far accumulated 330,707 ESTs and 31,079 cDNA sequences. The ESTs and cDNA clones thus sequenced were respectively mapped to 40,666 and 13,894 different loci on the latest pig genome sequence Sscrofa10.2; they corresponded to more than 15,000 and 12,000 different genes of other species, respectively. The cDNA resource presented here is valuable for annotation of the draft sequence of the pig genome and for exploring promoter sequences on the genome. It will also be valuable for molecular biology–based analyses in pigs, for example for analyses of protein production in vitro.

Methods

Construction of cDNA libraries

Tissues for construction of the cDNA libraries were prepared from 10 crossbred [(Landrace × Large White) × Duroc] pigs, which are representative of those used for the Japanese pork market, and a Meishan animal, a breed representative of those used in China. The pigs were housed at the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science (Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan)[18, 19]. We also used tissues from two Landrace and one Berkshire breed pig and one NIBS miniature pig[52]. In addition, we used a pig cloned from an animal of the Duroc breed (2–14) that was subjected to genome sequencing by the SGSC[57].

Using the collected tissues and cell populations, cDNA libraries were constructed by one of the following three methods. About two-thirds of the libraries (23) were constructed by using the oligo-capping method[21]. Fifteen of the oligo-capped cDNA libraries were constructed by using Gateway-compatible pCMVFL3 vector (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA)[53], whereas the vector for the rest was pME18SFL3 (Toyobo, Osaka, Japan). Five cDNA libraries were constructed by using another method for constructing full-length cDNA libraries, namely the vector-capping method[20]. In total, 28 libraries were generated by methods using the 5′ cap structure, which is characteristic of intact mRNA. To compile the remaining four libraries, because only small amounts of RNA could be prepared from the tissues or cell populations, we used the SMART method and pDNR-LIB vector (Clontech, Palo Alto, CA, USA); this method selectively clones cDNAs that are synthesized as far as the 5′-end of the mRNA molecule[22]. All of the cDNAs were cloned into the vector unidirectionally. The library construction methods used for each tissue or cell population are shown in Table1.

EST analysis and clustering/assembling

The cDNA libraries thus constructed were subjected to EST analysis by single-pass sequencing from the 5´-ends of the respective clones. The EST reads obtained underwent basecalling using Phred; the vector sequences were screened by using the crossmatch program in the Phrap package[54, 55]. Repetitive sequences and regions of low-complexity regions (e.g., poly(A) tracts) in the chromatograms thus generated were screened by using RepeatMasker[56] with RepBase[57] and in-house-generated Perl scripts. Clustering and assembly of sequences were performed with the TGICL package[58] with CAP3[59]. Chromatograms that were not included in the contigs or that did not have regions containing more than 100 bases with Phred quality values ≥10 were discarded.

Sequencing of entire inserts of cDNA clones

cDNA clones located at the most 5′ position in contigs generated by the assembling were selected for sequencing of the inserts. We also chose clones in singlets that did not join the contigs, provided that the clones corresponded to human genes with no counterparts among the clones selected from the contigs.

First, we sequenced the selected clones from the 5′-end with primer annealing with the vector sequence to confirm whether the correct clones had been selected. We also sequenced from the 3′-end with primer annealing with the vector sequence and T25V primer. The chromatograms that were obtained from the EST analysis and generated by sequencing from the 5′- and 3′-ends were subjected to basecalling with Phred and assembly by using Phrap. The contigs thus generated were screened with in-house Perl scripts to check for the low-quality regions (Phred quality values ≤ 25), and they were manually inspected for sequencing errors by using the Consed program[60]. Regions with low-quality or ambiguous bases were re-sequenced with primers (PW method;[29]) designed by using the Consed program with the “autofinish” option[60]. The procedure of inspection and sequencing of the remaining low-quality regions was performed twice or until no low-quality or ambiguous bases were observed. In addition to the PW method, we adopted another approach based on TPS, particularly for cDNA clones that could be difficult to sequence with the primer walking method[3032, 61]. With TPS, a large majority of the cDNA clones constructed by using the Gateway-compatible cloning vector (pCMVFL3; Toyobo, Osaka, Japan) were sequenced by using a combination of TPS and insert transfer with Gateway technology to reduce the number of shotgun clones with transposons in the vector sequence[31]. TPS was conducted with pooled DNA from two to 12 cDNA clones, as described previously[30, 31].

Computational analyses

The EST assemblies and cDNA clones were used in similarity analyses after interspersed repetitive sequences and low-complexity regions (such as polynucleotides and microsatellites) had been masked with the RepeatMasker program[56]. EST assemblies and cDNA clones on the pig genome sequence were mapped by using a BLAST similarity search[23] with the latest pig genome sequence, Sscrofa10.2[6]. The best alignment of the respective query sequences, with a BLAST similarity score above 100 and identity above 90%, was anchored on the genome sequence. Overlapped alignments of cDNA sequences on the pig genome with opposite directions were regarded as different loci. The region of the locus was extended from the anchored alignment to both ends by using other alignments of the same query sequence meeting the following criteria: (1) the direction of the alignment was identical to that of the anchored alignments; and (2) the distance between the alignment from the region of the locus (which is a possible intron) was less than 1 Mb. The loci were regarded as identical if the locus regions after extension overlapped and were mapped in the same direction. Correspondence of the pig cDNA sequences to genes was investigated by BLAST similarity search using the mRNA or protein sequences in the NCBI RefSeq databases of humans, mice, cattle, dogs, and pigs[24]. The similarity was considered as positive if the BLAST score was more than 50. The presence of a full-length CDS in each pig cDNA sequence was estimated by BLAST similarity analysis, using those protein sequences showing the highest similarity in the NCBI RefSeq database. Two sequences were aligned without any filtering and masking. If the cDNA sequence was aligned with the specified protein sequence trimmed at both ends by fewer than 10 amino acids, then we considered that the cDNA contained a full-length CDS. EST assemblies and cDNA clones were classified according to the Gene Ontology terms by using the ontology file[62]. Classification according to Gene Ontology was conducted by using the similarity of cDNA clones to the mRNA sequences of human genes in the NCBI RefSeq and the correspondence between genes and Gene Ontology terms provided in NCBI Gene[24].

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Maiko Tanaka-Matsuda, Toshie Iioka, Takako Suzuki, and Ikuyo Nakamori (JATAFF) for their technical assistance. This work was supported by the Integrated Research Project for Insect and Animal Using Genome Technology from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Japan, and Grants-in-Aid from the Japan Racing Association.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Agrogenomics Research Center, National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences
(2)
Division of Animal Sciences, National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences
(3)
Animal Genome Research Program
(4)
Animal Research Division, Japan Institute of Association for Techno-innovation in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
(5)
Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

References

  1. Dekkers JCM, Mathur PK, Knol EF: Genetic improvement of the pig. The Genetics of the Pig. Edited by: Rothschild MF, Ruvinsky A. 2011, CAB International, Wallingford, 390-425. 2View Article
  2. Vodicka P, Smetana K, Dvorankova B, Emerick T, Xu YZ, Ourednik J, Ourednik V, Motlik J: The miniature pig as an animal model in biomedical research. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2005, 1049: 161-171. 10.1196/annals.1334.015.View ArticlePubMed
  3. Kuzmuk KN, Schook LB: Pigs as a model for biomedilcal sciences. The Genetics of the Pig. Edited by: Rothschild MF, Ruvinsky A. 2011, CAB International, Wallingford, 426-444. 2View Article
  4. Lunney JK: Advances in swine biomedical model genomics. Int J Biol Sci. 2007, 3 (3): 179-184.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  5. Archibald AL, Bolund L, Churcher C, Fredholm M, Groenen MA, Harlizius B, Lee KT, Milan D, Rogers J, Rothschild MF, et al: Pig genome sequence–analysis and publication strategy. BMC Genomics. 2010, 11: 438-10.1186/1471-2164-11-438.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  6. International Swine Genome Sequencing Consortium: Draft sequence of the pig genome. in preparation
  7. Schook LB, Beever JE, Rogers J, Humphray S, Archibald A, Chardon P, Milan D, Rohrer G, Eversole K: Swine Genome Sequencing Consortium (SGSC): a strategic roadmap for sequencing the pig genome. Comp Func Genomics. 2005, 6: 251-255. 10.1002/cfg.479.View Article
  8. Groenen MAM, Schook LB, Archibald AL: Pig genomics. The Genetics of the Pig. Edited by: Rothschild MF, Ruvinsky A. 2011, CAB International, Wallingford, 179-199. 2View Article
  9. Ota T, Suzuki Y, Nishikawa T, Otsuki T, Sugiyama T, Irie R, Wakamatsu A, Hayashi K, Sato H, Nagai K, et al: Complete sequencing and characterization of 21,243 full-length human cDNAs. Nat Genet. 2004, 36 (1): 40-45. 10.1038/ng1285.View ArticlePubMed
  10. Immune Response Annotation Group: Structural and functional annotation of the porcine immunome. in preparation
  11. Loveland JE, Gilbert JG, Griffiths E, Harrow JL: Community gene annotation in practice. Database: the journal of biological databases and curation 2012. 2012, bas009-
  12. Searle SM, Gilbert J, Iyer V, Clamp M: The otter annotation system. Genome Res. 2004, 14 (5): 963-970. 10.1101/gr.1864804.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  13. Fahrenkrug SC, Smith TP, Freking BA, Cho J, White J, Vallet J, Wise T, Rohrer G, Pertea G, Sultana R, et al: Porcine gene discovery by normalized cDNA-library sequencing and EST cluster assembly. Mamm Genome. 2002, 13 (8): 475-478. 10.1007/s00335-001-2072-4.View ArticlePubMed
  14. Gorodkin J, Cirera S, Hedegaard J, Gilchrist MJ, Panitz F, Jorgensen C, Scheibye-Knudsen K, Arvin T, Lumholdt S, Sawera M, et al: Porcine transcriptome analysis based on 97 non-normalized cDNA libraries and assembly of 1,021,891 expressed sequence tags. Genome Biol. 2007, 8 (4): R45-10.1186/gb-2007-8-4-r45.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  15. Isom SC, Spollen WG, Blake SM, Bauer BK, Springer GK, Prather RS: Transcriptional profiling of day 12 porcine embryonic disc and trophectoderm samples using ultra-deep sequencing technologies. Mol Reprod Dev. 2010, 77 (9): 812-819. 10.1002/mrd.21226.View ArticlePubMed
  16. Wall PK, Leebens-Mack J, Chanderbali AS, Barakat A, Wolcott E, Liang H, Landherr L, Tomsho LP, Hu Y, Carlson JE, et al: Comparison of next generation sequencing technologies for transcriptome characterization. BMC Genomics. 2009, 10: 347-10.1186/1471-2164-10-347.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  17. Kim TH, Kim NS, Lim D, Lee KT, Oh JH, Park HS, Jang GW, Kim HY, Jeon M, Choi BH, et al: Generation and analysis of large-scale expressed sequence tags (ESTs) from a full-length enriched cDNA library of porcine backfat tissue. BMC Genomics. 2006, 7: 36-10.1186/1471-2164-7-36.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  18. Uenishi H, Eguchi T, Suzuki K, Sawazaki T, Toki D, Shinkai H, Okumura N, Hamasima N, Awata T: PEDE (Pig EST Data Explorer): construction of a database for ESTs derived from porcine full-length cDNA libraries. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004, 32: D484-D488. 10.1093/nar/gkh037. (Database issue)PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  19. Uenishi H, Eguchi-Ogawa T, Shinkai H, Okumura N, Suzuki K, Toki D, Hamasima N, Awata T: PEDE (Pig EST Data Explorer) has been expanded into Pig Expression Data Explorer, including 10 147 porcine full-length cDNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35: D650-D653. 10.1093/nar/gkl954. (Database issue)PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  20. Kato S, Oshikawa M, Ohtoko K: Full-length transcriptome analysis using a bias-free cDNA library prepared with the vector-capping method. Methods Mol Biol. 2011, 729: 53-70. 10.1007/978-1-61779-065-2_4.View ArticlePubMed
  21. Suzuki Y, Yoshitomo-Nakagawa K, Maruyama K, Suyama A, Sugano S: Construction and characterization of a full length-enriched and a 5'-end-enriched cDNA library. Gene. 1997, 200 (1–2): 149-156.View ArticlePubMed
  22. Zhu YY, Machleder EM, Chenchik A, Li R, Siebert PD: Reverse transcriptase template switching: a SMART approach for full-length cDNA library construction. BioTechniques. 2001, 30 (4): 892-897.PubMed
  23. Altschul SF, Madden TL, Schaffer AA, Zhang J, Zhang Z, Miller W, Lipman DJ: Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 1997, 25 (17): 3389-3402. 10.1093/nar/25.17.3389.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  24. Sayers EW, Barrett T, Benson DA, Bolton E, Bryant SH, Canese K, Chetvernin V, Church DM, DiCuccio M, Federhen S, et al: Database resources of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011, 39: D38-D51. 10.1093/nar/gkq1172. (Database issue)PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  25. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, et al: Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nat Genet. 2000, 25 (1): 25-29. 10.1038/75556.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  26. Okayama H, Berg P: High-efficiency cloning of full-length cDNA. Mol Cell Biol. 1982, 2 (2): 161-170.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  27. Pig (Sus scrofa) - Pre-ensembl.http://http://pre.ensembl.org/Sus_scrofa/,
  28. Craig JM, Bickmore WA: Chromosome bands–flavours to savour. BioEssays. 1993, 15 (5): 349-354. 10.1002/bies.950150510.View ArticlePubMed
  29. Wiemann S, Weil B, Wellenreuther R, Gassenhuber J, Glassl S, Ansorge W, Bocher M, Blocker H, Bauersachs S, Blum H, et al: Toward a catalog of human genes and proteins: sequencing and analysis of 500 novel complete protein coding human cDNAs. Genome Res. 2001, 11 (3): 422-435. 10.1101/gr.GR1547R.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  30. Butterfield YS, Marra MA, Asano JK, Chan SY, Guin R, Krzywinski MI, Lee SS, MacDonald KW, Mathewson CA, Olson TE, et al: An efficient strategy for large-scale high-throughput transposon-mediated sequencing of cDNA clones. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30 (11): 2460-2468. 10.1093/nar/30.11.2460.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  31. Morozumi T, Toki D, Eguchi-Ogawa T, Uenishi H: A rapid and cost-effective method for sequencing pooled cDNA clones by using a combination of transposon insertion and Gateway technology. BioTechniques. 2011, 51 (3): 195-197.View ArticlePubMed
  32. Shevchenko Y, Bouffard GG, Butterfield YS, Blakesley RW, Hartley JL, Young AC, Marra MA, Jones SJ, Touchman JW, Green ED: Systematic sequencing of cDNA clones using the transposon Tn5. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30 (11): 2469-2477. 10.1093/nar/30.11.2469.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  33. Farajollahi S, Maas S: Molecular diversity through RNA editing: a balancing act. Trends Genet. 2010, 26 (5): 221-230. 10.1016/j.tig.2010.02.001.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  34. Nishikura K: Functions and regulation of RNA editing by ADAR deaminases. Annu Rev Biochem. 2010, 79: 321-349. 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060208-105251.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  35. Curwen V, Eyras E, Andrews TD, Clarke L, Mongin E, Searle SM, Clamp M: The Ensembl automatic gene annotation system. Genome Res. 2004, 14 (5): 942-950. 10.1101/gr.1858004.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  36. Potter SC, Clarke L, Curwen V, Keenan S, Mongin E, Searle SM, Stabenau A, Storey R, Clamp M: The Ensembl analysis pipeline. Genome Res. 2004, 14 (5): 934-941. 10.1101/gr.1859804.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  37. Ensembl gene annotation project - Sus scrofa (Pig).http://www.ensembl.org/info/docs/genebuild/2012_04_sus_scrofa_genebuild.pdf,
  38. Carninci P, Kasukawa T, Katayama S, Gough J, Frith MC, Maeda N, Oyama R, Ravasi T, Lenhard B, Wells C, et al: The transcriptional landscape of the mammalian genome. Science. 2005, 309 (5740): 1559-1563.View ArticlePubMed
  39. Shiraki T, Kondo S, Katayama S, Waki K, Kasukawa T, Kawaji H, Kodzius R, Watahiki A, Nakamura M, Arakawa T, et al: Cap analysis gene expression for high-throughput analysis of transcriptional starting point and identification of promoter usage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003, 100 (26): 15776-15781. 10.1073/pnas.2136655100.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  40. Dermitzakis ET, Clark AG: Evolution of transcription factor binding sites in Mammalian gene regulatory regions: conservation and turnover. Mol Biol Evol. 2002, 19 (7): 1114-1121. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004169.View ArticlePubMed
  41. Ma W, Wong WH: The analysis of ChIP-Seq data. Methods Enzymol. 2011, 497: 51-73.View ArticlePubMed
  42. Matsumoto T, Okumura N, Uenishi H, Hayashi T, Hamasima N, Awata T: Population structure of pigs determined by single nucleotide polymorphisms observed in assembled expressed sequence tags. Anim Sci J. 2012, 83 (1): 14-22. 10.1111/j.1740-0929.2011.00920.x.View ArticlePubMed
  43. Kojima-Shibata C, Shinkai H, Morozumi T, Jozaki K, Toki D, Matsumoto T, Kadowaki H, Suzuki E, Uenishi H: Differences in distribution of single nucleotide polymorphisms among intracellular pattern recognition receptors in pigs. Immunogenetics. 2009, 61 (2): 153-160. 10.1007/s00251-008-0350-y.View ArticlePubMed
  44. Morozumi T, Uenishi H: Polymorphism distribution and structural conservation in RNA-sensing Toll-like receptors 3, 7, and 8 in pigs. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009, 1790 (4): 267-274. 10.1016/j.bbagen.2009.01.002.View ArticlePubMed
  45. Shinkai H, Tanaka M, Morozumi T, Eguchi-Ogawa T, Okumura N, Muneta Y, Awata T, Uenishi H: Biased distribution of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in porcine Toll-like receptor 1 (TLR1), TLR2, TLR4, TLR5, and TLR6 genes. Immunogenetics. 2006, 58 (4): 324-330. 10.1007/s00251-005-0068-z.View ArticlePubMed
  46. Uenishi H, Shinkai H: Porcine Toll-like receptors: the front line of pathogen monitoring and possible implications for disease resistance. Dev Comp Immunol. 2009, 33 (3): 353-361. 10.1016/j.dci.2008.06.001.View ArticlePubMed
  47. Jozaki K, Shinkai H, Tanaka-Matsuda M, Morozumi T, Matsumoto T, Toki D, Okumura N, Eguchi-Ogawa T, Kojima-Shibata C, Kadowaki H, et al: Influence of polymorphisms in porcine NOD2 on ligand recognition. Mol Immunol. 2009, 47 (2–3): 247-252.View ArticlePubMed
  48. Shinkai H, Okumura N, Suzuki R, Muneta Y, Uenishi H: Toll-Like receptor 4 polymorphism impairing lipopolysaccharide signaling in Sus scrofa, and its restricted distribution among Japanese wild boar populations. DNA Cell Biol. 2012, 31 (4): 575-581. 10.1089/dna.2011.1319.View ArticlePubMed
  49. Shinkai H, Suzuki R, Akiba M, Okumura N, Uenishi H: Porcine Toll-like receptors: recognition of Salmonella enterica serovar Choleraesuis and influence of polymorphisms. Mol Immunol. 2011, 48 (9–10): 1114-1120.View ArticlePubMed
  50. Rothschild MF, Hu ZL, Jiang Z: Advances in QTL mapping in pigs. Int J Biol Sci. 2007, 3 (3): 192-197.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  51. Matsumoto T, Nakajima I, Eguchi-Ogawa T, Nagamura Y, Hamasima N, Uenishi H: Changes in gene expression in a porcine preadipocyte cell line during differentiation. Anim Genet. in press
  52. Kano M, Toyoshi T, Iwasaki S, Kato M, Shimizu M, Ota T: QT PRODACT: usability of miniature pigs in safety pharmacology studies: assessment for drug-induced QT interval prolongation. J Pharmacol Sci. 2005, 99 (5): 501-511. 10.1254/jphs.QT-C13.View ArticlePubMed
  53. Hartley JL, Temple GF, Brasch MA: DNA cloning using in vitro site-specific recombination. Genome Res. 2000, 10 (11): 1788-1795. 10.1101/gr.143000.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  54. Ewing B, Green P: Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. II. Error probabilities. Genome Res. 1998, 8 (3): 186-194.View ArticlePubMed
  55. Ewing B, Hillier L, Wendl MC, Green P: Base-calling of automated sequencer traces using phred. I. Accuracy assessment. Genome Res. 1998, 8 (3): 175-185.View ArticlePubMed
  56. RepeatMasker Open-3.0.http://www.repeatmasker.org/,
  57. Jurka J: Repbase update: a database and an electronic journal of repetitive elements. Trends Genet. 2000, 16 (9): 418-420. 10.1016/S0168-9525(00)02093-X.View ArticlePubMed
  58. Pertea G, Huang X, Liang F, Antonescu V, Sultana R, Karamycheva S, Lee Y, White J, Cheung F, Parvizi B, et al: TIGR Gene Indices clustering tools (TGICL): a software system for fast clustering of large EST datasets. Bioinformatics. 2003, 19 (5): 651-652. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg034.View ArticlePubMed
  59. Huang X, Madan A: CAP3: A DNA sequence assembly program. Genome Res. 1999, 9 (9): 868-877. 10.1101/gr.9.9.868.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  60. Gordon D, Abajian C, Green P: Consed: a graphical tool for sequence finishing. Genome Res. 1998, 8 (3): 195-202.View ArticlePubMed
  61. Devine SE, Chissoe SL, Eby Y, Wilson RK, Boeke JD: A transposon-based strategy for sequencing repetitive DNA in eukaryotic genomes. Genome Res. 1997, 7 (5): 551-563.PubMed CentralPubMed
  62. Ontology file downloads.http://www.geneontology.org/GO.downloads.ontology.shtml,

Copyright

© Uenishi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

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.