Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:42:56.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Metabolomics evidences plasma and serum biomarkers differentiating two heavy pig breeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

S. Bovo ,
G. Mazzoni ,
G. Galimberti ,
D. G. Calò ,
F. Fanelli ,
M. Mezzullo ,
G. Schiavo ,
A. Manisi ,
P. Trevisi  and
P. Bosi
...Show all authors
S. Bovo
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Division of Animal Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale G. Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy
G. Mazzoni
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Division of Animal Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale G. Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy
G. Galimberti
Affiliation:
Department of Statistical Sciences ‘Paolo Fortunati’, University of Bologna, Via delle Belle Arti, 40126 Bologna, Italy
D. G. Calò
Affiliation:
Department of Statistical Sciences ‘Paolo Fortunati’, University of Bologna, Via delle Belle Arti, 40126 Bologna, Italy
F. Fanelli
Affiliation:
Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, Endocrinology Unit, University of Bologna, Massarenti 9, 40138 Bologna, Italy
M. Mezzullo
Affiliation:
Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, Endocrinology Unit, University of Bologna, Massarenti 9, 40138 Bologna, Italy
G. Schiavo
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Division of Animal Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale G. Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy
A. Manisi
Affiliation:
Department of Statistical Sciences ‘Paolo Fortunati’, University of Bologna, Via delle Belle Arti, 40126 Bologna, Italy
P. Trevisi
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Division of Animal Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale G. Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy
P. Bosi
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Division of Animal Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale G. Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy
S. Dall’Olio
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Division of Animal Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale G. Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy
U. Pagotto
Affiliation:
Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, Endocrinology Unit, University of Bologna, Massarenti 9, 40138 Bologna, Italy
L. Fontanesi*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Division of Animal Sciences, University of Bologna, Viale G. Fanin 46, 40127 Bologna, Italy
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

In pigs, many production traits are known to vary among breeds or lines. These traits can be considered end phenotypes or external traits as they are the final results of complex biological interactions and processes whose fine biological mechanisms are still largely unknown. This study was designed to compare plasma and serum metabolomic profiles between animals of two heavy pig breeds (12 Italian Large White and 12 Italian Duroc), testing indirectly the hypothesis that different genetic backgrounds might be the determining factors of differences observed on the level of metabolites in the analyzed biofluids between breeds. We used a targeted metabolomic approach based on mass spectrometric detection of about 180 metabolites and applied a statistical validation pipeline to identify differences in the metabolomic profiles of the two heavy pig breeds. Blood samples were collected after jugulation at the slaughterhouse and prepared for metabolomics analysis that was carried out using the Biocrates AbsoluteIDQ p180 Kit, covering five different biochemical classes: glycerophospholipids, amino acids, biogenic amines, hexoses and acylcarnitines. A statistical pipeline that included the selection of the most relevant metabolites differentiating the two breeds by sparse Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (sPLS-DA) was coupled with a stability test and significance test determined with leave one out and permutation procedures. sPLS-DA plots clearly separated the pigs of the two investigated breeds. A few metabolites (a total of five metabolites considering the two biofluids) involved in key metabolic pathways largely contributed to these differences between breeds. In particular, a higher level of the sphingomyelins SM (OH) C14:1 (both in plasma and serum), SM (OH) C16:1 (in serum) and SM C16:0 (in serum) were observed in Italian Duroc than in Italian Large White pigs and the inverse was for the biogenic amine kynurenine (in plasma). The level of another biogenic amine (acetylornithine) was higher in Italian Large White than in Italian Duroc pigs in both analysed biofluids. These results provided biomarkers that could be important to understand the biological differences between these two heavy pig breeds. In particular, according to the functional role played by sphingomyelins in obesity-induced inflammatory responses, it could be possible to speculate that a higher level of sphingomyelins in Italian Duroc might be related to the higher interrmuscular fat deposition of this breed compared with the Italian Large White. Additional studies will be needed to evaluate the relevance of these biomarkers for practical applications in pig breeding and nutrition.

Keywords

pig breedingmetabolitesmolecular phenotypesmetabolic pathwayproduction traits
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Supplement 10 , October 2016 , pp. 1741 - 1748
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Equal contribution.

References

Ball, HJ, Jusof, FF, Bakmiwewa, SM, Hunt, NH and Yuasa, HJ 2014. Tryptophan-catabolizing enzymes – party of three. Frontiers in Immunology 5, 485.Google Scholar
Bartel, J, Krumsiek, J and Theis, FJ 2013. Statistical methods for the analysis of high-throughput metabolomics data. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 4, e201301009.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benahmed, MA, Elbayed, K, Daubeuf, F, Santelmo, N, Frossard, N and Namer, IJ 2014. NMR HRMAS spectroscopy of lung biopsy samples: comparison study between human, pig, rat, and mouse metabolomics. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 71, 35–43.Google Scholar
Breier, M, Wahl, S, Prehn, C, Fugmann, M, Ferrari, U, Weise, M, Banning, F, Seissler, J, Grallert, H, Adamski, J and Lechner, A 2014. Targeted metabolomics identifies reliable and stable metabolites in human serum and plasma samples. PLoS One 9, e89728.Google Scholar
Buchanan, DS and Stalder, K 2011. Breeds of pigs. In The genetics of the pig, 2nd edition (ed. MF Rothschild and A Ruvinsky), pp. 445–472. CAB International, Wallingford CAB International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
Čandek-Potokar, M and Škrlep, M 2012. Factors in pig production that impact the quality of dry-cured ham: a review. Animal 6, 327–338.Google Scholar
Capozzalo, MM, Kim, JC, Htoo, JK, de Lange, CF, Mullan, BP, Hansen, CF, Resink, JW, Stumbles, PA, Hampson, DJ and Pluske, JR 2012. An increased ratio of dietary tryptophan to lysine improves feed efficiency and elevates plasma tryptophan and kynurenine in the absence of antimicrobials and regardless of infection with enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli in weaned pigs. Journal of Animal Science 90 (suppl.), 191–193.Google Scholar
Chun, H and Keleş, S 2010. Sparse partial least squares regression for simultaneous dimension reduction and variable selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, Statistical Methodology 72, 3–25.Google Scholar
D’Alessandro, A, Marrocco, C, Zolla, V, D’Andrea, M and Zolla, L 2011. Meat quality of the longissimus lumborum muscle of Casertana and Large White pigs: metabolomics and proteomics intertwined. Journal of Proteomics 75, 610–627.Google Scholar
Fiehn, O 2002. Metabolomics – the link between genotypes and phenotypes. Plant Molecular Biology 48, 155–171.Google Scholar
Fontanesi, L, Bertolini, F, Scotti, E, Trevisi, P, Buttazzoni, L, Dall’Olio, S, Davoli, R, Bosi, P and Russo, V 2012. Polymorphisms in an obesity-related gene (PCSK1) are associated with fat deposition and production traits in Italian heavy pigs. Animal 12, 1913–1924.Google Scholar
Good, P 2013. Permutation tests. A practical guide to resampling methods for testing hypotheses, 2nd edition. Springer, New York, USA.Google Scholar
Hastie, T, Tibshirani, R and Friedman, JH 2009. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, 2nd edition. Springer, New York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, Q, Ren, P, Kong, X, Wu, Y, Wu, G, Li, P, Hao, F, Tang, H, Blachier, F and Yin, Y 2012. Comparison of serum metabolite compositions between obese and lean growing pigs using an NMR-based metabonomic approach. Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry 23, 133–139.Google Scholar
Hollywood, K, Brison, DR and Goodacre, R 2006. Metabolomics: current technologies and future trends. Proteomics 6, 4716–4723.Google Scholar
Holmes, E, Loo, RL, Stamler, J, Bictash, M, Yap, IK, Chan, Q, Ebbels, T, De Iorio, M, Brown, IJ, Veselkov, KA, Daviglus, ML, Kesteloot, H, Ueshima, H, Zhao, L, Nicholson, JK and Elliott, P 2008. Human metabolic phenotype diversity and its association with diet and blood pressure. Nature 453, 396–400.Google Scholar
Kang, SC, Kim, BR, Lee, SY and Park, TS 2013. Sphingolipid metabolism and obesity-induced inflammation. Frontiers in Endocrinology 4, 67.Google Scholar
Kastenmüller, G, Römisch-Margl, W, Wägele, B, Altmaier, E and Suhre, K 2011. metaP-server: a web-based metabolomics data analysis tool. Journal of Biomedical Biotechnology 2011, 839862.Google Scholar
Legendre, P and Legendre, L 1998. Statistical testing by permutation. Numerical ecology, 2nd English edition. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Merrifield, CA, Lewis, M, Claus, SP, Beckonert, OP, Dumas, ME, Duncker, S, Kochhar, S, Rezzi, S, Lindon, JC, Bailey, M, Holmes, E and Nicholson, JK 2011. A metabolic system-wide characterisation of the pig: a model for human physiology. Molecular BioSystems 7, 2577–2588.Google Scholar
Metzler-Zebeli, B U, Ertl, R, Klein, D and Zebeli, Q 2015. Explorative study of metabolic adaptations to various dietary calcium intakes and cereal sources on serum metabolome and hepatic gene expression in juvenile pigs. Metabolomics 11, 545–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteiro, MS, Carvalho, M, Bastos, ML and Guedes de Pinho, P 2013. Metabolomics analysis for biomarker discovery: advances and challenges. Current Medical Chemistry 20, 257–271.Google Scholar
Nissen, PM, Nebel, C, Oksbjerg, N and Bertram, HC 2011. Metabolomics reveals relationship between plasma inositols and birth weight: possible markers for fetal programming of type 2 diabetes. Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2011, 378268.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2008. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Renner, S, Römisch-Margl, W, Prehn, C, Krebs, S, Adamski, J, Göke, B, Blum, H, Suhre, K, Roscher, AA and Wolf, E 2012. Changing metabolic signatures of amino acids and lipids during the prediabetic period in a pig model with impaired incretin function and reduced β-cell mass. Diabetes 61, 2166–2175.Google Scholar
Rohart, F, Paris, A, Laurent, B, Canlet, C, Molina, J, Mercat, MJ, Tribout, T, Muller, N, Iannuccelli, N, Villa-Vialaneix, N, Liaubet, L, Milan, D and San Cristobal, M 2012. Phenotypic prediction based on metabolomic data for growing pigs from three main European breeds. Journal of Animal Science 90, 4729–4740.Google Scholar
Sauerbrei, W, Buchholz, A, Boulesteix, AL and Binder, H 2015. On stability issues in deriving multivariable regression models. Biometrical Journal 57, 531–555.Google Scholar
Sellier, P 1976. The basis of crossbreeding in pigs; a review. Livestock Production Science 3, 203–226.Google Scholar
Siegert, S, Yu, Z, Wang-Sattler, R, Illig, T, Adamski, J., Schreiber, S, Krawczak, M, Nothnagel, M and Nöthlings, U 2012. Sex dependency of human metabolic profiles revisited. Metabolomics: Open Access 2, 115.Google Scholar
Slotte, JP 2013. Biological functions of sphingomyelins. Progress in Lipid Research 52, 424–437.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Solberg, R, Enot, D, Deigner, HP, Koal, T, Scholl-Bürgi, S, Saugstad, OD and Keller, M 2010. Metabolomic analyses of plasma reveals new insights into asphyxia and resuscitation in pigs. PLoS One 5, e9606.Google Scholar
Straadt, IK, Aaslyng, MD and Bertram, HC 2014. An NMR-based metabolomics study of pork from different crossbreeds and relation to sensory perception. Meat Science 96, 719–728.Google Scholar
Trevisi, P, Colombo, M, Priori, D, Fontanesi, L, Galimberti, G, Calò, DG, Motta, V, Latorre, R, Fanelli, F, Mezzullo, M, Pagotto, U, Gherpelli, Y, D’Inca, R and Bosi, P 2015. Comparison of three patterns of feed supplementation with live Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast on postweaning diarrhea, health status, and blood metabolic profile of susceptible weaning pigs orally challenged with Escherichia coli F4ac. Journal of Animal Science 93, 2225–2233.Google Scholar
Urban, M, Enot, DP, Dallmann, G, Körner, L, Forcher, V, Enoh, P, Koal, T, Keller, M and Deigner, HP 2010. Complexity and pitfalls of mass spectrometry-based targeted metabolomics in brain research. Analytical Biochemistry 406, 124–131.Google Scholar
Wishart, DS, Jewison, T, Guo, AC, Wilson, M, Knox, C, Liu, Y, Djoumbou, Y, Mandal, R, Aziat, F, Dong, E, Bouatra, S, Sinelnikov, I, Arndt, D, Xia, J, Liu, P, Yallou, F, Bjorndahl, T, Perez-Pineiro, R, Eisner, R, Allen, F, Neveu, V, Greiner, R and Scalbert, A 2013. HMDB 3.0-The Human Metabolome Database in 2013. Nucleic Acids Research 41, D801–D807.Google Scholar
Yu, Z, Kastenmüller, G, He, Y, Belcredi, P, Möller, G, Prehn, C, Mendes, J, Wahl, S, Roemisch-Margl, W, Ceglarek, U, Polonikov, A, Dahmen, N, Prokisch, H, Xie, L, Li, Y, Wichmann, HE, Peters, A, Kronenberg, F, Suhre, K, Adamski, J, Illig, T and Wang-Sattler, R 2011. Differences between human plasma and serum metabolite profiles. PLoS One 6, e21230.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bovo supplementary material

Table S1

Download Bovo supplementary material(File)
File 34.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bovo supplementary material

Table S2

Download Bovo supplementary material(File)
File 49 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bovo supplementary material

Table S3

Download Bovo supplementary material(File)
File 45.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bovo supplementary material

Table S4

Download Bovo supplementary material(File)
File 42.5 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bovo supplementary material

Table S5

Download Bovo supplementary material(File)
File 43.5 KB