J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Geers, R.
Right arrow Articles by Jourquin, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Geers, R.
Right arrow Articles by Jourquin, J.

Journal of Animal Science, Vol 74, Issue 4 717-722, Copyright © 1996 by American Society of Animal Science

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Variability of energy metabolism and nuclear T3-receptors within the skeletal muscle tissue of pigs different with respect to the halothane gene

R. Geers, C. Decanniere, A. Rosier, H. Ville, P. Van Hecke, F. Vandesande and J. Jourquin
Laboratory of Agricultural Buildings Research, Catholic University Leuven, Heverlee, Belgium.

Energy metabolism of skeletal muscle tissue of pigs growing from approximately 12 to 18 kg (12 homozygous halothane negative, HH; 16 heterozygotes, Hh; 17 homozygous halothane susceptible, hh) was measured in vivo using 31P nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. Data for intracellular pH, phosphocreatine (PCr), phosphomonoesters (PME), and ATP were analyzed by canonical discriminant analysis, an artificial neural network approach, and analysis of variance. Within the hh pigs, two subpopulations could be distinguished before the application of halothane treatment. Some of the hh pigs had a high PME concentration in the biceps femoris muscle (hh(pme+)), whereas others had a low concentration (hh(pme-)) (2.18 +/- .12 for hh(pme+) vs 1.68 +/- .12 mM for hh(pme-), P < .004). The hh(pme+) pigs were statistically different from HH pigs for pH (P < .03), PME (P < .004), and PCr (P < .008) before halothane treatment. The hh(pme-) pigs were not different from the Hh and HH pigs with respect to PME when measured before halothane treatment (P > .05). However, intracellular pH (P < .03) and PCr (P < .008) of the hh(pme-) pigs were different from those of HH pigs (7.15 vs 7.19 for pH and 38.7 vs 35.1 for PCr, respectively). When combining intracellular pH, PME, and PCr within a canonical discriminant analysis, all were measured before halothane treatment, Hh pigs were found to be different from HH pigs (Mahalanobis distance different from zero, P < .02). In a second experiment, growth rate, depth of longissimus muscle, and maximal binding capacity of nuclear T3-receptors of skeletal muscle tissue were different (P < .05, P < .002, and P < .02, respectively) among pigs selected from the same genetic lines. Of the variability in depth of the longissimus muscle, 22% was explained by variability in maximal binding capacity of nuclear T3-receptors. These results, if confirmed with a large number of pigs, might open new possibilities for selection procedures for leanness because, with respect to halothane susceptibility, a shift between genotypic and phenotypic variability was observed.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Society of Animal Science.