Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 325

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pigs in sequence space: A 0.66X coverage pig genome survey based on shotgun sequencing

Open access
Wernersson, Rasmus, Schierup, Mikkel H, Jørgensen, Frank G, Gorodkin, Jan, Panitz, Frank, Stærfeldt, Hans-Henrik, Christensen, Ole F, Mailund, Thomas, Hornshøj, Henrik, Klein, Ami, Wang, Jun, Liu, Bin, Hu, Songnian, Dong, Wei, Li, Wei, Wong, Gane KS, Yu, Jun, Wang, Jian, Bendixen, Christian, Fredholm, Merete, Brunak, Søren, Yang, Huanming, Bolund, Lars·2005·BMC Genomics

Abstract

Background: Comparative whole genome analysis of Mammalia can benefit from the addition of more species. The pig is an obvious choice due to its economic and medical importance as well as its evolutionary position in the artiodactyls. Results: We have generated ~3.84 million shotgun sequences (0.66X coverage) from the pig genome. The data are hereby released (NCBI Trace repository with center name "SDJVP", and project name "Sino-Danish Pig Genome Project") together with an initial evolutionary analysis. The non-repetitive fraction of the sequences was aligned to the UCSC human-mouse alignment and the resulting three-species alignments were annotated using the human genome annotation. Ultra-conserved elements and miRNAs were identified. The results show that for each of these types of orthologous data, pig is much closer to human than mouse is. Purifying selection has been more efficient in pig compared to human, but not as efficient as in mouse, and pig seems to have an isochore structure most similar to the structure in human. Conclusion: The addition of the pig to the set of species sequenced at low coverage adds to the understanding of selective pressures that have acted on the human genome by bisecting the evolutionary branch between human and mouse with the mouse branch being approximately 3 times as long as the human branch. Additionally, the joint alignment of the shot-gun sequences to the human-mouse alignment offers the investigator a rapid way to defining specific regions for analysis and resequencing.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2164-6-70

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 325

Metadata

Authors
Wernersson, R., Schierup, M. H., Jørgensen, F. G., Gorodkin, J., Panitz, F., Stærfeldt, H.-H., Christensen, O. F., Mailund, T., Hornshøj, H., Klein, A., Wang, J., Liu, B., Hu, S., Dong, W., Li, W., Wong, G. K., Yu, J., Wang, J., Bendixen, C., Fredholm, M., Brunak, S., Yang, H., & Bolund, L.
Venue
BMC Genomics
Published
2005-05-10
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
70-70
ISSN
1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1604336286
Cited by
325
References
5
FWCI
7.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Pigs in sequence space: A 0.66X coverage pig genome survey based on shotgun sequencing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2164-6-70
The paper
Wernersson, R., Schierup, M. H., Jørgensen, F. G., Gorodkin, J., Panitz, F., Stærfeldt, H.-H., Christensen, O. F., Mailund, T., Hornshøj, H., Klein, A., Wang, J., Liu, B., Hu, S., Dong, W., Li, W., Wong, G. K., Yu, J., Wang, J., Bendixen, C., . . . Bolund, L. (2005). Pigs in sequence space: A 0.66X coverage pig genome survey based on shotgun sequencing. BMC Genomics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-6-70

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.