2007
DOI: 10.1093/nar/gkl954
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PEDE (Pig EST Data Explorer) has been expanded into Pig Expression Data Explorer, including 10 147 porcine full-length cDNA sequences

Abstract: We formerly released the porcine expressed sequence tag (EST) database Pig EST Data Explorer (PEDE; ), which comprised 68 076 high-quality ESTs obtained by using full-length-enriched cDNA libraries derived from seven tissues. We have added eight tissues and cell types to the EST analysis and have integrated 94 555 additional high-quality ESTs into the database. We also fully sequenced the inserts of 10 147 of the cDNA clones that had undergone EST analysis; the sequences and annotation of the cDNA clones were … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
43
1

Year Published

2007
2007
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
1
43
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In Table 2 we summarize the current status of development of EST projections for the major farm animal species, the largest being the chicken with almost 350,000 ESTs. Many databases and tools based on the web have been set up to meet the EST annotation and data management requirements of multiple highthroughput EST sequencing projects for cattle (Kumar et al 2004) sheep (Caprera et al 2007), chicken (Abdrakhmanov et al 2000;Chen et al 2005;Carre et al 2006;Park et al 2006) and pig (Kumar et al 2004;Chen et al 2005;Uenishi et al 2007). They have become an important resource for livestock genetic research.…”
Section: Est Sequencingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Table 2 we summarize the current status of development of EST projections for the major farm animal species, the largest being the chicken with almost 350,000 ESTs. Many databases and tools based on the web have been set up to meet the EST annotation and data management requirements of multiple highthroughput EST sequencing projects for cattle (Kumar et al 2004) sheep (Caprera et al 2007), chicken (Abdrakhmanov et al 2000;Chen et al 2005;Carre et al 2006;Park et al 2006) and pig (Kumar et al 2004;Chen et al 2005;Uenishi et al 2007). They have become an important resource for livestock genetic research.…”
Section: Est Sequencingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding technological aspects related to drycured high-quality products and the meat industry, an adequate layer of fat is required for the seasoning process of PDO products, such as dry-cured hams (Bosi & Russo 2004;Candek-Potokar & Skrlep 2012). During the last decade, pig transcriptomic data have been obtained initially by expressed sequence tag sequencing (Mikawa et al 2004;Uenishi et al 2004Uenishi et al , 2007Chen et al 2006;Gorodkin et al 2007) and microarrays (Hornshøj et al 2007;Ferraz et al 2008;Moon et al 2009), which allowed the comparison of gene expression levels in several pig tissues. More recently, the RNA-seq approach was used to compare the transcription profile of different pig fat tissues or different pig breeds (Chen et al 2011;Li et al 2012;Corominas et al 2013;Jiang et al 2013;Zhou et al 2013;Sodhi et al, 2014;Toedebusch et al 2014;Wang et al 2014).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The ΔlsgB mutant exhibited significantly attenuated invasion of both PIEC and PK15 cells; however, unexpectedly; we observed a prominent and significant increase in the adhesion of the ΔlsgB mutant to both cell types. Deletion of lsgB led to the exposure of the penultimate galactose of LOS; therefore, we tested whether these cell types have differences in the expression of the galactose binding domains or receptors, such as the galactose binding lectin domain (GalR) of the adhesion G protein-coupled receptor [44,45], but the results did not suggest any difference on the expression of GalR1 or GalR2 in response to these strains. However notably, our adhesion inhibition assays showed that addition of galactose significantly blocked adhesion of the ΔlsgB mutant in a dose-dependent manner, while adhesion of the wild-type strain was completely unaffected, revealing that it is the terminal galactose residue, which is exposed after the removal of sialic acid by lsgB deletion (see Figure 3(d)), that mediates the high level of adhesion.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%