Chromosome abnormalities are well known for their negative impact on the reproductive performance of carriers. Such abnormalities could have severe effect on animal industries which rely heavily on efficient reproduction. We conducted a cytogenetic survey of breeder pigs from 4 different Canadian farms to investigate the frequency of chromosome abnormalities and to assess their reproductive impact on pig populations. Our study revealed that 50% of the ‘hypoprolific’ boars and 2.5% of the young boars raised for service in artificial insemination were carriers of chromosome anomalies while no chromosome defect was noted in any of the ‘proven’ breeder boars. G-banding technique to determine the type of abnormalities detected 3 previously unreported translocations involving chromosomes 1 and 6, chromosomes 10 and 13 and chromosomes 9 and 14. The reciprocal nature of these translocations was confirmed either using fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) technique or immunostaining for synaptonemal complex delineation and were named rcp(1;6)(p22,q12), rcp(10;13), and rcp(9;14) (p24;q27), respectively. Prolificacy of 1/6 and 10/13 translocation carriers was noted to be reduced by more than 40% compared to their normal counterparts while it was reduced by 26% in carriers of the 9/14 translocation. Carriers of 1/6 and 9/14 translocations displayed a higher repeat breeding tendency, compared to their herd average (5 and 16%, respectively). While for the 9/14 translocation the prevalence of stillbirths was lower than that in their herd [8.7 vs. 10.4% (p < 0.001)]. The present results, albeit based on a relatively small number of pigs, indicate that the prevalence of chromosome abnormalities could be much higher in Canadian pigs compared to that reported in European pigs and underline the urgent need to initiate cytogenetic screening programs as one of the effective ways to reduce reproductive problems in Canadian pig populations.

Keywords:
Chromosome translocations, Fertility, FISH, Litter size, Pigs, Synaptonemal complex analysis
1.
Basrur PK, Stranzinger G: Veterinary cytogenetics: past and perspective. Cytogenet Genome Res 120:11–25 (2008).
2.
Ducos A, Berland HM, Pinton A, Guillemot E, Seguela A, et al: Nine new cases of reciprocal translocation in the domestic pig (Sus scrofa domestica L.). J Hered 89:136–142 (1998a).
3.
Ducos A, Pinton A, Berland HM, Seguela A, Blanc MF, et al: Five new cases of reciprocal translocation in the domestic pig. Hereditas 128:221–229 (1998b).
4.
Ducos A, Pinton A, Yerle M, Séguéla A, Berland HM, et al: Cytogenetic and molecular characterization of eight new reciprocal translocations in the pig species. Estimation of their incidence in French populations. Genet Sel Evol 34:389–406 (2002).
5.
Ducos A, Berland HM, Bonnet N, Calgaro A, Billoux S, et al: Chromosomal control of pig populations in France: 2002–2006 survey. Genet Sel Evol 39:583–597 (2007).
6.
Ducos A, Revay T, Kovacs A, Hidas A, Pinton A, et al: Cytogenetic screening of livestock populations in Europe: an overview. Cytogenet Genome Res 120:26–41 (2008).
7.
Fenton FR, Bazer FW, Robison OW, Ulberg LC: Effect of quantity of uterus on uterine capacity in gilts. J Anim Sci 31:104–106 (1970).
8.
Foxcroft GR, Dixon WT, Novak S, Putman CT, Town SC, et al: The biological basis for prenatal programming of postnatal performance in pigs. J Anim Sci 84(suppl):E105–112 (2006).
9.
Gustavsson I: Committee for the Standardized Karyotype of the Domestic Pig. Hereditas 109:151–157 (1988a).
10.
Gustavsson I: Reciprocal translocation in four boars producing decreased litter size. Hereditas 109:159–168 (1988b).
11.
Gustavsson I, Jonsson L: Stillborns, partially monosomic and partially trisomic, in the offspring of a boar carrying a translocation: rcp(14;15)(q29;q24). Hereditas 117:31–37 (1992).
12.
Gustavsson I, Settergren I, King WA: Occurrence of two different reciprocal translocations in the same litter of domestic pigs. Hereditas 99:257–267 (1983).
13.
Gustavsson I, Switonski M, Larsson K, Ploen L, Hojer K: Chromosome banding studies and synaptonemal complex analyses of four reciprocal translocations in the domestic pig. Hereditas 109:169–184 (1988).
14.
Gustavsson I, Switoński M, Iannuzzi I, Plöen L, Larsson K: Banding studies and synaptonemal complex analysis of an X-autosome translocation in the domestic pig. Cytogenet Cell Genet 50:188–194 (1989).
15.
Hart EJ, Pinton A, Powell A, Wall R, King WA: Meiotic recombination in normal and clone bulls and their offspring. Cytogenet Genome Res 120:97–101 (2008).
16.
Konfortova GD, Miller NG, Tucker EM: A new reciprocal translocation (7q+;15q–) in the domestic pig. Cytogenet Cell Genet 71:285–288 (1995).
17.
Kovács A, Villagómez DAF, Gustavsson I, Lindblad K, Foote RH, et al: Synaptonemal complex analysis of a three-breakpoint translocation in a subfertile bull. Cytogenet Cell Genet 61:195–201 (1992).
18.
Koykul W, Baguma-Nibasheka M, King WA, Basrur PK: Meiosis and apoptosis in germ cells of X-autosome translocation carrier boars. Mol Reprod Dev 56:448–457 (2000).
19.
Mäkinen A, Andersson M, Nikunen S: Detection of the X chromosomes in a Klinefelter boar using human X chromosome painting probe. Anim Reprod Sci 52:317–323 (1998).
20.
Neal MS, Reyes ER, Fisher KS, King WA, Basrur PK: Reproductive consequences of an X-autosome translocation in a swine herd. Canad Vet J 39:232–237 (1998).
21.
Pinton A, Ducos A, Berland H, Seguela A, Brun-Baronnat C, et al: Chromosomal abnormalities in hypoprolific boars. Hereditas 132:55–62 (2000).
22.
Pinton A, Ducos A, Yerle M: Chromosomal rearrangements in cattle and pigs revealed by chromosome microdissection and chromosome painting. Genet Sel Evol 35:685–696 (2003).
23.
Pinton A, Ducos A, Yerle M:. Estimation of the proportion of genetically unbalanced spermatozoa in the semen of boars carrying chromosomal rearrangements using FISH on sperm nuclei. Genet Sel Evol 36:123–137 (2004).
24.
Pinton A, Raymond Letron I, Berland HM, Bonnet N, Calgaro A, et al: Meiotic studies in an azoospermic boar carrying a Y;14 translocation. Cytogenet Genome Res 120:106–111 (2008).
25.
Popescu CP, Bonneau M, Tixier M, Bahri I, Boscher J: Reciprocal translocations in pigs. Their detection and consequences on animal performance and economic losses. J Hered 75:448–452 (1984).
26.
Popescu CP, Hayes H, Dutrillaux B: Techniques in Animal Cytogenetics, INRA Editions, pp 1–2 (Springer, Heidelberg 2000).
27.
Robinson JA, Buhr MM: Impact of genetic selection on management of boar replacement. Theriogenology 63:668–678 (2005).
28.
Seabright M: A rapid banding technique for human chromosomes. Lancet 2:971–972 (1971).
29.
Singh B, Fisher KR, Yadav BR, Basrur PK: Characterization of a translocation and its impact on fertility in the pig. Genome 37:280–288 (1994).
30.
Telenius H, Carter N, Bebb CE, Nordenskjold M, et al: Degenerated oligonucleotide-primed PCR: general amplification of target DNA by a single degenerated primer. Genomics 13: 718–725 (1992).
31.
Villagómez DAF, Pinton A: Chromosomal abnormalities, meiotic behavior and fertility in domestic animals. Cytogenet Genome Res 120:69–80 (2008).
32.
Villagómez DAF, Gustavsson I, Plöen L: Synaptonemal complex analysis of reciprocal chromosome translocations in the domestic pig. Genet Sel Evol 23(suppl 1):217–221 (1991).
33.
Villagómez DAF, Gustavsson I, Alabay B, Ploen L: Meiotic chromosome asynapsis in a boar with a reciprocal translocation and acquired testicular degeneration. Hereditas 118:101–111 (1993).
34.
Yerle M, Schmitz A, Milan D, Chaput B, Monteagudo L, et al: Accurate characterization of porcine bivariate flow karyotype by PCR and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Genomics 16:97–103 (1993).
© 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel
2010
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.