Next Article in Journal
Effects of Inclusion of N-Carbamylglutamate in the Non-Protein Diet on Growth and Slaughter Performance, Meat Quality, Nitrogen Metabolism and Antioxidant of Holstein Bulls
Previous Article in Journal
Casting the Net Widely for Change in Animal Welfare: The Plight of Birds in Zoos, Ex Situ Conservation, and Conservation Fieldwork
Previous Article in Special Issue
Omics Insights into Animal Resilience and Stress Factors
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

How Epigenetics Can Enhance Pig Welfare?

by
Arthur Nery da Silva
1,
Michelle Silva Araujo
1,
Fábio Pértille
2,*,† and
Adroaldo José Zanella
1,*,†
1
Department of Preventive Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, Campus “Fernando Costa”, University of São Paulo, Pirassununga 13635-900, Brazil
2
Department of Biomedical & Clinical Sciences (BKV), Linköping University, SE-58183 Linkoping, Sweden
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Animals 2022, 12(1), 32; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12010032
Submission received: 19 November 2021 / Revised: 15 December 2021 / Accepted: 21 December 2021 / Published: 24 December 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Epigenetics and Animal Welfare, Stress and Resilience)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

In the pig industry, new market trends and consumer demands have emerged over the past decades, which includes increased concerns about how animals are raised on farms. As a consequence of consumers’ concerns, technologies capable of predicting animal welfare on farms have been explored. One of the technologies that are permeating the frontier of knowledge in this area are epigenetic biomarkers. Epigenetic biomarkers are biochemical markers surrounding the genome, which may be able to predict the exposures that individuals had during their lifetime. These markers represent an advance in the molecular level accuracy to support the current welfare indicators. In this literature review focused on pigs, we show some studies already carried out, we performed an integrative analysis of the already reported genes surrounding epi-biomarkers, and we highlight the benefits of investing efforts in this research field to enhance animal welfare and consumers’ trust.

Abstract

Epigenetics works as an interface between the individual and its environment to provide phenotypic plasticity to increase individual adaptation capabilities. Recently, a wide variety of epi-genetic findings have indicated evidence for its application in the development of putative epi-biomarkers of stress in farm animals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate previously reported stress epi-biomarkers in swine and encourage researchers to investigate potential paths for the development of a robust molecular tool for animal welfare certification. In this literature review, we report on the scientific concerns in the swine production chain, the management carried out on the farms, and the potential implications of these practices for the animals’ welfare and their epigenome. To assess reported epi-biomarkers, we identified, from previous studies, potentially stress-related genes surrounding epi-biomarkers. With those genes, we carried out a functional enrichment analysis of differentially methylated regions (DMRs) of the DNA of swine subjected to different stress-related conditions (e.g., heat stress, intrauterine insult, and sanitary challenges). We identified potential epi-biomarkers for target analysis, which could be added to the current guidelines and certification schemes to guarantee and certify animal welfare on farms. We believe that this technology may have the power to increase consumers’ trust in animal welfare.

1. Introduction

Animal welfare has become a public concern globally [1,2,3]. This spans companion animals, sporting events, laboratory experimentation and livestock industries. There is a growing demand for products that meet high animal welfare standards, which the industry is strongly committed to meeting [4]. Consequently, the biggest worldwide pork exporters have adjusted their production chain to align with animal welfare demands [5]. For instance, in the UK and in the European Union, gestation crates have been banned [6], and a similar trend has been observed in Brazil with the recent directive to establish good animal management and welfare practices for commercially-raised pigs [7].
An important topic that has been attracting the attention of the animal protein industry is the animal welfare certification, which is demanded by importers. This stems from the fact that consumers want to be aware of their purchased meat’s origin, and the animal welfare conditions within the production systems in which these animals are reared [8]. In this regard, biotechnological approaches have been applied to ensure with great accuracy that this demand is met. Companies that go to farms to check behavior, management, biosecurity, and animal welfare play a fundamental role in accomplishing the current goals of ensuring adequate animal welfare within the industry. Moreover, these companies provide certification for pig farms that comply with all animal welfare guidelines. However, once the technician/auditor has left the farm, it is difficult to guarantee that ap-propriate procedures will be constantly applied. Even though practices like improper handling may cause variations in the organoleptic characteristics (such as color, brightness, odor, texture, and taste) and/or chemical composition (such as pH, water holding capacity or color) of the meat [9,10], these changes are seldom noticed by the consumer. Moreover, it directly infers on the moral values of the final consumer who is purchasing the product certified for animal welfare, because he/she might pay for a product that does not meet his/her expectations of good welfare. Thus, the establishment of the animal’s physiological and molecular information, which ensures consumers that the animals have been bred and raised in compliance with a set of pre-established welfare standards, not only benefits customers by providing the tools to make informed choices about their purchases, but also allows the market to aggregate more value to their products. This information could be certified by a stamp that translates physiological and molecular parameters of the animals into a “handling score”, for example.
One area of study that links the effects of the environment and intrinsic factors on individuals is epigenetics [11]. Epigenetic studies have been used in many fields of research, such as pharmacology [12], nutrition [13], and welfare [14] across species. Among the numerous fields that epigenetics permeates, efforts to identify epigenetic markers of long-term stress in production animals is currently a hot topic within the animal welfare field [14,15,16,17].
In this article, we provide an overview of some of the investigations already carried out, as well as challenges and potentials associated with this approach. This compilation of peer-review articles explored epigenetic markers in animal welfare research. Our aim is to encourage researchers to extensively investigate potential new paths for the development of a robust molecular tool for animal welfare certification. This tool, together with a careful human inspection, may have the power to greatly increase the precision of current welfare indicators and boosts the credibility of pig producers that comply with welfare guidelines, as well as empowers meat consumers concerned about animal welfare and food quality. For this purpose, we have organized this literature review in such a way that we present the current consumers’ demands on animal protein, the relevance of housing systems for ensuring animal welfare, the methods that are currently used to measure pig welfare, what are the outcomes of poor animal welfare for the epigenome of pigs, and how it can be used as an epigenetic biomarker of stress.

2. Livestock Demands

Livestock production is expected to continue to increase to meet growing demand for animal products [18]. However, this is expected to result in poorer animal welfare [19]. Recently, more and more consumers have raised concerns about the systems and conditions in which their food is produced, potentially driving new trends focused on ethical production [20]. Furthermore, in 2015, the United Nations implicitly set animal welfare as a point of synergy for the sustainable development of food production at the global level [21,22].
Farming activities are no longer seen simply as for the production of food [23]. Farming is increasingly viewed through the lens of “one welfare”, where farmers influence the health of the environment, of the farm animals under their care, and consumers who buy their products [24]. This new demand came from consumers who dictate what kinds of products they want to eat based on their concepts of quality and safety [9]. In addition, these reflections on “one welfare” generated the possibility of increasing monetization for the farmer [25], because some certified products are more expensive for the final consumer.
Considering these demands and market opportunities, the management and housing systems of the animals play a fundamental role to guarantee animal welfare. To illustrate the importance of housing systems, we present in the next section some of the implications observed in the field that are of relevance to pig welfare.

3. Housing Systems

Meeting minimum necessary housing requirements may not be a major challenge in extensive production and for small pig farmers who normally target their product to the local market or for self-consumption. However, in intensive systems, even the minimum requirements can be challenging as they must follow international rules to meet all the animals’ needs and market expectations, which includes animal welfare [26,27]. In this regard, one of the most important factors to provide adequate welfare is the housing system.
Currently, there are different setups of conventional housing systems for pigs, which include crates, indoor group housing, and outdoor systems—each of which carries ad-vantages and disadvantages for pigs and farmers. For example, an indoor group housing system is commonly characterized as posing physical challenges to veterinary assistance and to animal feeding, in comparison to crates [28,29]. However, in terms of behavior indicators, indoor group housing tends to result in better welfare [28,30,31]. Another relevant issue involved in the livestock industry is the management of organic and pharmaceutical residues [32], sustainable use of the land [33], and financial costs, which also vary by housing system.
Despite the variety of housing system possibilities for pigs, each with its respective pros and cons, the welfare conditions currently found in some systems are considered precarious and requiring immediate change [34]. For example, the welfare of crated sows in several countries is deemed very poor. It was reported that sows kept in crates have limited expression of natural behavior, which leads to neurological dysfunctions and lameness [34,35,36,37,38]. Alternatively, group housing allows animals to express social behavior, which is associated with decreased agonistic interactions, reduced stereotypies, and improved cognition [35]. However, a frequent concern reported by pig farmers is the innate social aspect of hierarchy, which can be a challenge when housing sows in groups, as hostile behavior may arise from social disputes and result in compromised welfare and production outcomes [39].
In this scenario, even though indoor group housing and outdoor systems may represent challenges of their own and the transition may be difficult or costly for farmers, pressures by legislators [6,7] and demands by consumers are decisive [40,41]. Therefore, in the next topics of our review we point out potentially useful approaches to certify animal welfare.

4. Animal Welfare Indicators

Broom [42] suggested two ways to access behavioral indicators of poor animal welfare. The first focuses on individual failure to cope with the environment. This is an easily identifiable indicator by the pig farmers, since it aligns with increases in mortality and productivity declines. An example of this situation is when the environment in which the individual is raised is poor and leads animals to develop abnormal behaviors or diseases. Therefore, it is impossible for the animal to express its full potential and, consequently, significant economic losses are inevitable. The second type of indicator focuses on how individuals cope with environmental adversity. These indicators are usually more difficult for farmers to assess because they involve physiological outcomes in the animals, such as cardiac, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and hormonal changes. In general, these indicators do not lead to death, but they may reduce the welfare and performance of the animals [42].
To use quantitative measures to assess the level of animal welfare, biochemical markers have been employed at the experimental level. However, these approaches remain insufficient, because they can only identify the animal’s biochemical profile in a limited time frame, compromising its applicability in the industry [43]. For example, these indicators may reflect the poor welfare experienced within just a few hours or days before the measurement, depending on its half-life, and is not a reliable account of the animal’s life trajectory, like the effects of weaning or gestating in crates. Moreover, these markers are usually limited to specific tissues or fluids, which limits their applicability to a broad suite of welfare problems. For example, creatine kinase (CK) is an enzyme involved in the citric acid cycle, producing energy in the mitochondria. Many studies have shown its consistency as a biomarker in the tissue of farm animals raised under different levels of welfare [44,45,46,47]. These studies suggested that animals with high CK at the time of slaughter were previously subjected to stressful situations [44,45,46,47]. Likewise, the measurement of serum lactate concentrations has also shown to be a promising biomarker, mainly for measuring pre-slaughter stress, despite its short half-life [45,48].
Hormones are another known indicator of animal welfare [49]. Cortisol, for example, is a glucocorticoid hormone released under stressful situations, capable of affecting sever-al physiological pathways, including the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis [50,51]. This hormone has a recognized importance in the evolution and physiological adjustment of many species [52]. However, cortisol also plays a fundamental role as a biochemical marker of acute or medium-term stress in animal production [49]. Currently, different research groups have been striving to develop consistent endocrine profiles for chronically stressed animals and its outcomes in the organism [53]. However, cortisol measurement techniques remain insufficient for the purpose of welfare assessment [53,54]. Sampling techniques usually provide cortisol concentrations only from a few days or weeks [49,55], which limits its practical use. Lastly, cortisol level variations are not fully understood as a stress indicator because both positive and negative exposures can affect its fluctuation [56]. Furthermore, its use as an indicator of stress has been questioned [54,56].
Studies have shown that chronic stress alters the expression of key enzymes involved in stress susceptibility [57,58] and spine plasticity [59], which can cause specific epigenetic marks in the genome and behavioral changes [57,58,59,60]. These triggered modifications around the genome do not produce genetic changes, however, they can alter gene expression and protein transcription. An attempt to predict the proteomic profile of animals raised under good or poor welfare conditions was reviewed by Mouzo et al. [43]. They highlighted the advantages of using proteomic approaches to predict animal welfare according to the animal protein biochemical composition. For example, the study made important considerations about the protein profile of pale soft exudative (PSE) meat, which is one of the main depreciation factors of pork meat, and how proteomic approaches can be used to predict it. However, proteomic approaches have provided a landscape view of the gene expression and its consistency is quite variable because there is a wide variety of mechanisms describing post-translational mechanisms shaping the protein production [43]. Consequently, challenges can arise for the long-term stress assessment using proteomic approaches [61]. By comparing epigenetics and proteomics, proteomics was recently shown to be a preferable approach to assess short-term stress, whereas epigenetics might be a better forecaster for early prediction of stress susceptibility and a suited approach to be added into the animal breeding schemes [61]. Taking this into consideration, we hypothesize that the investigation of epigenetic mechanisms may offer a valuable attempt to identify signatures above the genome of animals raised under different welfare conditions, which may have a greater power to predict its life-long welfare.

5. Epigenetics

The term “epigenetics” was first coined by Waddington in 1942, who suggested the interaction of external factors with the genome as “epigenotype”, and that this interaction could affect the development of the individuals [62]. Recently, epigenetics was recognized as an interface in the transition from the genetic code into a functional mRNA that may be traduced into a protein [11]. Epigenetics consists of a heritable pattern of chemical alterations on DNA that can modulate gene expression without alterations in the base pairs structure of the DNA double strand [63]. In addition, these specific patterns are maintained and inherited during the mitotic, and possibly meiotic, divisions of the cells [63].
The importance of epigenetics is not limited to a cellular perspective only. Epigenetics has a huge and decisive role in evolution and speciation [64,65,66]. Moreover, epigenetic mechanisms can affect the gene expression of one or more generations and influence the adaptation of individuals to a specific environment [62]. Therefore, Hyde et al. [11] suggested that epigenetics works as the interface between the individual and its environment to provide phenotypic plasticity to increase their adaptation capabilities [11]. Some of the epigenetic mechanisms that act in modulating gene expression are DNA methylation [15], DNA acetylation [67], histone modifications [68], nucleosome repositioning [69], and small interfering RNAs [16]. These biological mechanisms help cells to differentiate not only morphologically, but also functionally, controlling the genomic regions that will be accessed and/or expressed. DNA methylation is the most investigated mechanism in epigenetics [11]. This mechanism involves an addition of 5′ methyl to the cytosine followed by guanine (CpG) in the DNA chain, and this reaction is generally associated with repression in gene expression [11]. However, several studies reported an enormous dependence on the methylation location regarding the gene to predict their potential effect on the gene expression and/or regulation if, for example, the methyl marks are in a promoter, intronic or coding region of the genome. In addition, the level of methylation of one CpG is also important, because it can also infer modulation of the gene expression [70]. Then, to examine this amount of information, bioinformatics analysis using differential methylation regions (DMR) is used to compare hypo or hypermethylated patterns among individuals [71].
The interaction among animals and their environments was an issue of discussion even before the theory of evolution through natural selection [72]. However, the role of genetic factors at the molecular level and their environmental interactions are still premature [38,73,74,75,76,77]. When the individual is exposed to an environmental experience, it is possible to determine what the epigenetic effects generated are [78], and methylation is a promising biomarker to detect and evaluate these effects [17]. In the last decades, valuable efforts have been made to understand the epigenetic differences in the genome of experimental animals, which is the topic of our next session of this review.

6. Epigenetic Assessment in Mammals

Weaver et al. [79] provided the first evidence that maternal care could produce persistent changes in epigenetic patterns in rats, which included DNA methylation and chromatin remodeling analyses. They revealed a mechanism for the long-term effects of maternal care in the progeny, caused by a stressful challenge during early life. The authors showed that the descendants who received more maternal care demonstrated low reactions to stress in adulthood, while offspring that received less maternal care were more susceptible to stress. This happened because the epigenomes of the adult rats exhibited different patterns, specifically the glucocorticoid receptor gene promoter in the hippocampus, which possibly affected the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis and its responses to stressful situations [79]. In addition, Champagne [80] elucidated the evidence for the generational transmission of maternal care and mechanisms underlying transmission [80].
Intergenerational and transgenerational epigenetics is one of the most discussed topics in the field of epigenetics inheritance. Current literature supports the understanding that the transmission of epigenetics marks from one generation (F0) to the next (F1) represents an intergenerational event; while the transmission acquired in F0 that is transmitted to the third or fourth generation (F2 for males or F3 for females) can be considered as transgenerational epigenetic event [81]. In other words, different numbers of generations are directly affected by environmental insults in males and non-pregnant females when compared to pregnant females. This happens because the majority of female mammals have their oocytes produced during their fetal development [82,83]. For example, the por-cine female fetuses’ gonads differentiate into an ovary containing gamete cells by day 30 of pregnancy and by mid-gestation primordial follicles are already recognizable [84]. Consequently, if a pregnant female suffers a potential epigenotoxic environmental exposure, not only will the fetus be directly affected by this environmental insult, but also the germ cells of the fetus. In summary, three generations can be epigenetically affected by an environmental insult: F0 (somatic and germ cells of the pregnant female), F1 (fetus), F2 (germ cells of the fetus) [81,85,86]. Figure 1 was provided for exemplification, using the porcine model.
Although the most characterized epigenetic studies have been conducted in small experimental animals, such as rodents [79,87,88,89], insects [13], and worms [90], a representative number of studies have been done on domestic animals, such as pigs [89,91,92,93,94,95]. In the following section, we will discuss in detail studies focused on pigs as models in epigenetic investigations and draw attention to the role of stress as an epigenetic modulator.

7. Epigenetics Studies in the Porcine Model

An important role of epigenetics in gene expression of productive [15,16,96,97,98] and reproductive traits of pigs [99,100,101] has been demonstrated. Moreover, recent work has demonstrated the impact of several factors on the epigenome of the domestic pig such as the influence of nutrition on the pregnant sow epigenome [93,94,102], the impact of exposure of pregnant sows to chemicals on its offspring’s epigenome [89,91], and the influence of the year´s season on the epigenome of the boars’ ejaculate and its fertility [95,103,104,105].
Studies have indicated that the management of pigs during gestation promotes changes in their offspring’s behavior [38,73,75,106]. However, to the best of our knowledge, stressful events in pig farming, such as the effect of gestation crates, lameness, and social isolation have not been explored by epigenetic studies in pigs [107,108]. These studies would be valuable for both animal welfare and the industry. Likewise, these epigenetic investigations would also be valuable for translational studies, as the porcine model is a well-known standard for human studies [109,110].
A possible mechanism by which epigenetics may act is shown in Figure 2. We hypothesize that negative situations where pigs are exposed to at challenging production systems can affect somatic and germ cells. Thereby, epigenetic patterns could be transmit-ted from parents to their offspring, but for that to happen, it needs to be present somehow in their germline strain (sperm or oocytes) epigenome. Therefore, not only does the individual accumulate epigenetic marks during its life, but it also inherits different patterns from its parents.
Valuable efforts have been made using the porcine model in epigenetic studies (Table 1). However, to the best of our knowledge, there are few epigenetic studies related to the daily challenges of pig farming, such as inadequate housing, painful procedures, heat stress, or other stressful situations. First, Collier et al. [111] highlighted the role of maternal stress and its potential for the inheritance of epigenetic changes by future generations [111]. Nevertheless, they did not use an epigenetic approach to support their suggested mechanism. Their study focused on measuring cortisol, interleukins, cytokines, and other physiological biomarkers. Then, Schachtschneider et al. [112] demonstrated that early-life challenges, such as iron deficiency and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRS), were reported to alter DNA methylation and expression of key genes related to hippocampal plasticity, which can cause long-term cognitive damage [112]. Recently, Kasper et al. [61] published a literature review showing the potential of omics approaches in the development of biomarkers in pig production, including epigenetics, and how it could positively impact the issue of tail biting.
The absence of disease is a welfare demand, and epigenetic studies have also revealed interesting contributions to explain pathophysiological mechanisms of infections by microorganisms. A study performed by Sajjanar et al. [117] showed the role of the DMRs in regulating genomic regions of porcine mammary epithelial cells infected by Escherichia coli strains when compared with non-infected cells. They identified significant DMRs, hypomethylated in the cells infected with E. coli, in the promoter region of the SDF4, SRXN1, CSF1 and CXCL14 genes. Using functional network analysis, the authors also reported that these genes are related to innate and adaptative immune response pathways [117]. In addition, a study carried out by Simões et al. [118] clarified how an African swine fever infection can impair the subnuclear domains and chromatin architecture of infected cells, compromising gene expression, and favoring viral dissemination. This mechanism is part of an emergent field of studies, which have shown that some viruses subvert cellular epigenetic mechanisms and recruit host transcription factors to their benefit by changing chromatin structure [118,119].
Using muscle tissue samples from a heat stress-exposed group and an unexposed group of pigs, the study performed by Hao et al. [15] showed that the methylation level of the heat-stressed group was significantly lower than what was found among the control group for some genomic regions. Moreover, they showed that the DMRs were located around important genes related to cell development, which may play a role in muscle performance and function. In another study, Hao et al. [16] showed different microRNA expression profiles in pigs affected by chronic heat stress, which probably affected gene expression at a post-transcriptional level. Lastly, the study conducted by Ponsuksili et al. [97] showed differences in the epigenetic patterns of muscle cells from different pig breeds and their role in the development of the muscle phenotype.
Table 1 summarizes some important findings and advances using pigs as an experimental model in epigenetic related studies. We selected only studies originally published in peer-reviewed journals that addressed relevant information on epigenetics over the past 10 years. To classify the studies according to epigenetic mechanisms in the table, we used the concepts recommended by Lacal and Ventura [81], Tuscher and Day [86], and John and Rougeulle [120] as a basis. They suggested that only changes in the F3 generation in females, and F2 in males [81,86], can be defined as a “transgenerational epigenetic inheritance” event. In addition, the concept of “intergenerational epigenetics” was used to define studies that addressed exposures that led to epigenetic changes in the somatic tissues of the F1 offspring but did not persist/or was not tested in the F2 or F3 generations [81,86]. Finally, the term “direct exposure” was used to define studies that investigated epigenetic marks in a single generation (F0) [120].

8. Gene Network Analysis on Stress in Pigs

Although there is substantial evidence regarding the suitability of methylation as a molecular marker to predict pig welfare [61], the findings are still premature and further research will be needed. To the best of our knowledge, the number of articles reporting DMRs in the context of compromised welfare is limited [15,96,102,112,117]. In addition, the results are quite variable in terms of specific affected genes. However, this is expected, since the experimental contexts are different, and include intrinsic and extrinsic variations of individuals, such as genotypic variability and tested stress models, for example. In addition, the laboratorial and statistical approaches performed for DMR identification across the experiments are also variable among the previous published studies.
Therefore, to explore the common biological functions performed by the previously identified stress-related genes, we performed an integrative analysis considering these previously identified epi-markers. A functional enrichment analysis was carried out with the 28 DMR-related genes identified as significant from each one of the previous studies when subjected to different stress conditions (Table 2). This analysis was performed by gene enrichment in the category of co-expression and predicted network using GeneMania web environment [121] (acessed on 14 September 2021). The integration of the genes and its most cited molecular functions can be seen in Figure 3. We summarized the main identified functions of the genes using a word cloud web-tool (https://www.wordclouds.com/ accessed on 7 October 2021), which takes into consideration the number of times a word is identified to output it with its proportional font size.
We found 28 candidate genes in the literature that are connected in our stress-related epi-gene network. Moreover, another 20 genes emerged as connected to this network and consequently are potential candidate genes for this same trait. For example, the genes KCNJ3 and KCNJ9 were already reported to be associated with neurologic dysfunctions, such as schizophrenia [122] and hemiplegia [123], respectively, in humans. Interestingly, the genes enriched 7 pathways related to transport mechanisms across the cell membrane. Moreover, the genes KCNJ6, KCNJ5, FHL1, AKT2, NGF and RYR3 from the main core of the network were enriched for the regulation of potassium channel activity pathway. Those genes were previously reported to be relevant when analyzing heat stress [15] and animal exposition to sanitary challenges [112], which are two of the hot topics in animal welfare in pig research [15,112]. From the gene network (Figure 3A), most of the pathways (Figure 3B) identified (FDR ≤ 0.19) by the enriched genes play a role in the regulation of transmembrane transport and basic cell signaling processes. Notably, the regulation of potassium channel activity was the top pathway in our analysis. Potassium ion transmembrane transport activity is one of the most important mechanisms for cell physiology in a wide variety of tissues [124]. Consequently, their malfunction has been associated with a wide variety of pathologies [125,126]. Dysfunction of potassium channels in the nervous system has been associated with health issues like epilepsy, episodic ataxia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and schizophrenia [125]. This happens because these channels play a central role in cell excitability [127], hormone secretion [128], cell proliferation [129], and apoptosis [130]. To the best of our knowledge, studies have not identified a clear relationship between up or downregulation of potassium ion transport activity and brain neurologic dysfunction in pigs, but in the mice model, pieces of evidence have been raised [131,132]. After inducing a group of mice to acute stress and assessing their behavior response to this situation, Guo et al. [132] identified that acute stress-induced a significant reduction in calcium-potassium channels in the amygdala of the stressed mice. This molecular pathway and this source of tissue may be a potential candidate to assess long-term information of pigs, and mammals in general, exposed to stressful situations.
Lastly, epigenetic studies have enormous potential to provide life-long information associated with the animal’s attempts to cope with its environment, which is central to the most cited animal welfare definition [42], when the mechanisms for the domestic pig and other species will be better understood.

9. Conclusions

In the last decade, the interest in the epigenetic field has exponentially increased and has shown enormous potential in answering scientific questions in different areas. In the animal welfare field applied to livestock animals, valuable attempts have been made to identify putative epigenetic biomarkers of stress. Furthermore, this knowledge may have the potential to increase productivity, health, and meat quality. Thus, considering the latest evidence, using epigenetics as a tool to certify animal welfare may be one of the new trends in the pig industry. In this study, we brought together the latest findings in the area of epigenetic markers in studies of well-being in pigs. In addition, we have provided a list of potential genes for target analysis, which could be used in methylated DNA sequencing studies using Bisulfite conversion, which can enhance the application of this technology in animal breeding schemes. We aim for a future in which epigenetics will be included as a measure for physiological and animal management parameters, which will help to improve our decision-making into how to improve housing systems, food quality, and the production system of pigs in general. At this moment, findings remain quite premature for assuring the development of an epigenetic panel of biomarkers capable of predicting life-long welfare in commercially raised pigs. However, future studies will not only elucidate mechanisms in the stress response but are also likely to increase the number of publications to form a panel of biomarkers capable of predicting animal welfare.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.N.d.S., F.P. and A.J.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, A.N.d.S.; writing—review and editing, A.N.d.S., F.P., M.S.A. and A.J.Z.; data analysis, A.N.d.S.; visualization, A.N.d.S.; and supervision and resources, F.P. and A.J.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by grant #2018/01082-04, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP); and in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 88887.509167/2020-00. We also greatly appreciate funding from the Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences (BKV) from University of Linköping, Campus US.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge all anonymous reviewers for their great contribution to this study. In addition, A.N.d.S. acknowledges his scholarship funding by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 88887.509167/2020-00. F.P. appreciates funding from São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, Brazil) projects #2016/20440-3 and #2018/13600-0 and Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS) grant #2018-01074. Figures were created with biorender.com (accessed on 4 July 2021).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cornish, A.; Raubenheimer, D.; McGreevy, P. What we know about the public’s level of concern for farm animal welfare in food production in developed countries. Animals 2016, 6, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Sinclair, M.; Zhang, Y.; Descovich, K.; Phillips, C.J.C. Farm animal welfare science in China—A bibliometric review of chinese literature. Animals 2020, 10, 540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. de Queiroz, R.G.; de Faria Domingues, C.H.; Canozzi, M.E.A.; Garcia, R.G.; Ruviaro, C.F.; Barcellos, J.O.J.; Borges, J.A.R. How do Brazilian citizens perceive animal welfare conditions in poultry, beef, and dairy supply chains? PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Upton, M.; Otte, J. The impact of trade agreements on livestock producers. BSAP Occas. Publ. 2004, 33, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. European Commission. Study on the Impact of Animal Welfare International Activities; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017; Volume 1, pp. 212–213. [Google Scholar]
  6. European Community. Council directive 2001/88/ec amending directive 91/630/eec laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs. Off. J. Eur. Community 2001, 316, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. MAPA. Estabelecer as Boas Práticas de Manejo e Bem-Estar Animal nas Granjas de Suínos de Criação Comercial; Diário Oficial da União: Brasilia, Brazil, 2020; p. 5. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dagg, P.J.; Butler, R.J.; Murray, J.G.; Biddle, R.R. Meeting the requirements of importing countries: Practice and policy for on-farm approaches to food safety. Rev. Sci. Tech. 2006, 25, 685–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alonso, M.E.; González-Montaña, J.R.; Lomillos, J.M. Consumers’ concerns and perceptions of farm animal welfare. Animals 2020, 10, 385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Trevisan, L.; Brum, J.S. Incidence of pale, soft and exudative (PSE) pork meat in reason of extrinsic stress factors. Agr. Sci. 2020, 92, e20190086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hyde, L.K.; Friso, S.; Choi, S.W. Introduction to Epigenetics; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; ISBN 9780128045725. [Google Scholar]
  12. Nilsson, E.; King, S.; McBirney, M.; Kubsad, D.; Pappalardo, M.; Beck, D.; Sadler-Riggleman, I.; Skinner, M.K. Vinclozolin induced epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of pathologies and sperm epimutation biomarkers for specific diseases. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lyko, F.; Foret, S.; Kucharski, R.; Wolf, S.; Falckenhayn, C.; Maleszka, R. The honey bee epigenomes: Differential methylation of brain DNA in queens and workers. PLoS Biol. 2010, 8, e1000506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Pértille, F.; Ibelli, A.M.G.; El Sharif, M.; Poleti, M.D.; Fröhlich, A.S.; Rezaei, S.; Ledur, M.C.; Jensen, P.; Guerrero-Bosagna, C.; Coutinho, L.L. Putative Epigenetic Biomarkers of Stress in Red Blood Cells of Chickens Reared Across Different Biomes. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 508809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hao, Y.; Cui, Y.; Gu, X. Genome-wide DNA methylation profiles changes associated with constant heat stress in pigs as measured by bisulfite sequencing. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 27507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Hao, Y.; Liu, J.R.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, P.G.; Feng, Y.J.; Cui, Y.J.; Yang, C.H.; Gu, X.H. The microRNA expression profile in porcine skeletal muscle is changed by constant heat stress. Anim. Genet. 2016, 47, 365–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Pértille, F.; Brantsæter, M.; Nordgreen, J.; Coutinho, L.L.; Janczak, A.M.; Jensen, P.; Guerrero-Bosagna, C. DNA methylation profiles in red blood cells of adult hens correlate with their rearing conditions. J. Exp. Biol. 2017, 220, 3579–3587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Turk, J. Meeting projected food demands by 2050: Understanding and enhancing the role of grazing ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kearney, J. Food consumption trends and drivers. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2793–2807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. United Nations. Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  22. Keeling, L.; Tunón, H.; Olmos Antillón, G.; Berg, C.; Jones, M.; Stuardo, L.; Swanson, J.; Wallenbeck, A.; Winckler, C.; Blokhuis, H. Animal welfare and the United Nations sustainable development goals. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Savulescu, J.; Vergunst, F. Five Ways the Meat on Your Plate Is Killing the Planet. 2017. Available online: https://theconversation.com/five-ways-the-meat-on-your-plate-is-killing-the-planet-76128 (accessed on 3 August 2021).
  24. Blokhuis, H.J.; Keeling, L.J.; Gavinelli, A.; Serratosa, J. Animal welfare’s impact on the food chain. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 19, S79–S87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Buller, H.; Blokhuis, H.; Jensen, P.; Keeling, L. Towards farm animal welfare and sustainability. Animals 2018, 8, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. National Research Council. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1996; pp. 25–26. ISBN 9780309053778. [Google Scholar]
  27. Region, W.; Tracy, K. The effect of housing systems on the welfare of pigs in santa sub-division in the North West region of Cameroon. J. Environ. Issues Agric. Dev. Ctries. 2018, 10, 24–25. [Google Scholar]
  28. Li, Y.Z.; Gonyou, H.W. Comparison of management options for sows kept in pens with electronic feeding stations. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 93, 445–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. McGlone, J.J. The future of pork production in the world: Towards sustainable, welfare-positive systems. Animals 2013, 3, 401–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Jansen, J.; Kirkwood, R.N.; Zanella, A.J.; Tempelman, R.J. Influence of gestation housing on sow behavior and fertility. J. Swine Health Prod. 2007, 15, 132–136. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jang, J.C.; Hong, J.S.; Jin, S.S.; Kim, Y.Y. Comparing gestating sows housing between electronic sow feeding system and a conventional stall over three consecutive parities. Livest. Sci. 2017, 199, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Van Epps, A.; Blaney, L. Antibiotic residues in animal waste: Occurrence and degradation in conventional agricultural waste management practices. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2016, 2, 135–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Dourmad, J.Y.; Ryschawy, J.; Trousson, T.; Bonneau, M.; Gonzàlez, J.; Houwers, H.W.J.; Hviid, M.; Zimmer, C.; Nguyen, T.L.T.; Morgensen, L. Evaluating environmental impacts of contrasting pig farming systems with life cycle assessment. Animal 2014, 8, 2027–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Harrison, R. Animal Machine; Vincent Stuart: London, UK, 1982; Volume 296, ISBN 9781780642840. [Google Scholar]
  35. The Humane Society of the United States. Welfare issues with gestation crates for pregnant sows. Impacts Farm Anim. 2013, 25, 3. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mellor, D.J. Updating animal welfare thinking: Moving beyond the “five freedoms” towards “A lifeworth living”. Animals 2016, 6, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Browning, H.; Veit, W. Is humane slaughter possible? Animals 2020, 10, 799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Parada Sarmiento, M.; Bernardino, T.; Tatemoto, P.; Polo, G.; Zanella, A.J. The in-utero experience of piglets born from sows with lameness shapes their life trajectory. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Eastwood, L. Group Housing Systems for Dry Sows; Compassion in World Farming: Surrey, UK, 2017; Volume 17–37, pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  40. Broom, D.M. Animal welfare: Concepts and measurement. J. Anim. Sci. 1991, 69, 4167–4175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Poletto, R.; Hötzel, M.J. The five freedoms in the global animal agriculture market: Challenges and achievements as opportunities. Anim. Front. 2012, 2, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Broom, D.M. Indicators of poor welfare. Br. Vet. J. 1986, 142, 524–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Mouzo, D.; Rodríguez-Vázquez, R.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Franco, D.; Zapata, C.; López-Pedrouso, M. Proteomic application in predicting food quality relating to animal welfare. A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 99, 520–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hunter, R.R.; Mitchell, M.A.; Carlisle, A.J.; Quinn, A.D.; Kettlewell, P.J.; Knowles, T.G.; Warriss, P.D. Physiological responses of broilers to pre-slaughter lairage: Effects of the thermal micro-environment? Br. Poult. Sci. 1998, 39, 53–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. D’eath, R.B.; Turner, S.P.; Kurt, E.; Evans, G.; Thölking, L.; Looft, H.; Wimmers, K.; Murani, E.; Klont, R.; Foury, A.; et al. Pigs’ aggressive temperament affects pre-slaughter mixing aggression, stress and meat quality. Animal 2010, 4, 604–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Fidan, E.D.; Türkyılmaz, M.K.; Nazlıgül, A.; Aypak, S.Ü.; Karaarslan, S. Effect of preslaughter shackling on stress, meat quality traits, and glycolytic potential in broilers. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2015, 17, 1141–1150. [Google Scholar]
  47. Loudon, K.M.W.; Tarr, G.; Lean, I.J.; Polkinghorne, R.; McGilchrist, P.; Dunshea, F.R.; Gardner, G.E.; Pethick, D.W. The impact of pre-slaughter stress on beef eating quality. Animals 2019, 9, 612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Rocha, L.M.; Dionne, A.; Saucier, L.; Nannoni, E.; Faucitano, L. Hand-held lactate analyzer as a tool for the real-time measurement of physical fatigue before slaughter and pork quality prediction. Animal 2015, 24, 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Möstl, E.; Palme, R. Hormones as indicators of stress. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 2002, 23, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Moberg, G.P. Influence of stress on reproduction: Measure on well-being. In Animal Stress; Moberg, G.P., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1985; Volume 53, pp. 245–267. ISBN 9788578110796. [Google Scholar]
  51. Einarsson, S.; Madej, A.; Tsuma, V. The influence of stress on early pregnancy in the pig. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 1996, 42, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Berger, S.; Wikelski, M.; Romero, L.M.; Kalko, E.K.V.; Rödl, T. Behavioral and physiological adjustments to new predators in an endemic island species, the Galápagos marine iguana. Horm. Behav. 2007, 52, 653–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Palme, R. Non-invasive measurement of glucocorticoids: Advances and problems. Physiol. Behav. 2019, 199, 229–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Dickens, M.J.; Romero, L.M. A consensus endocrine profile for chronically stressed wild animals does not exist. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 2013, 191, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lee, D.Y.; Kim, E.; Choi, M.H. Technical and clinical aspects of cortisol as a biochemical marker of chronic stress. BMB Rep. 2015, 48, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Pollard, T.M. Use of cortisol as a stress marker: Practical and theoretical problems. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 1995, 7, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hunter, R.G. Epigenetic effects of stress and corticosteroids in the brain. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 2012, 6, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Nätt, D.; Johansson, I.; Faresjö, T.; Ludvigsson, J.; Thorsell, A. High cortisol in 5-year-old children causes loss of DNA methylation in SINE retrotransposons: A possible role for ZNF263 in stress-related diseases. Clin. Epigenet. 2015, 7, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Laplant, Q.; Vialou, V.; Covington, H.E.; Dumitriu, D.; Feng, J.; Warren, B.L.; Maze, I.; Dietz, D.M.; Watts, E.L.; Iñiguez, S.D.; et al. Dnmt3a regulates emotional behavior and spine plasticity in the nucleus accumbens. Nat. Neurosci. 2010, 13, 1137–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Sailaja, B.S.; Cohen-Carmon, D.; Zimmerman, G.; Soreq, H.; Meshorer, E. Stress-induced epigenetic transcriptional memory of acetylcholinesterase by HDAC4. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, E3687–E3695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Kasper, C.; Ribeiro, D.; de Almeida, A.M.; Larzul, C.; Liaubet, L.; Murani, E. Omics application in animal science—A special emphasis on stress response and damaging behaviour in pigs. Genes 2020, 11, 920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Waddington, C.H. The pupal contraction as an epigenetic crisis in drosophila. J. Zool. 1942, A111, 188. [Google Scholar]
  63. Gibney, E.R.; Nolan, C.M. Epigenetics and gene expression. Heredity 2010, 105, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Lind, M.I.; Spagopoulou, F. Evolutionary consequences of epigenetic inheritance. Heredity 2018, 121, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Sundman, A.S.; Pértille, F.; Coutinho, L.L.; Jazin, E.; Guerrero-Bosagna, C.; Jensen, P. DNA methylation in canine brains is related to domestication and dog-breed formation. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0240787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pértille, F.; Da Silva, V.H.; Johansson, A.M.; Lindström, T.; Wright, D.; Coutinho, L.L.; Jensen, P.; Guerrero-Bosagna, C. Mutation dynamics of CpG dinucleotides during a recent event of vertebrate diversification. Epigenetics 2019, 14, 685–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Zhou, N.; Cao, Z.; Wu, R.; Liu, X.; Tao, J.; Chen, Z.; Song, D.; Han, F.; Li, Y.; Fang, F.; et al. Dynamic changes of histone H3 lysine 27 acetylation in pre-implantational pig embryos derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 2014, 148, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Han, K.; Ren, R.; Cao, J.; Zhao, S.; Yu, M. Genome-wide identification of histone modifications involved in placental development in pigs. Front. Genet. 2019, 10, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Morgan, A.; Legresley, S.; Fischer, C. Remodeler catalyzed nucleosome repositioning: Influence of structure and stability. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Greenberg, M.V.C.; Bourc’his, D. The diverse roles of DNA methylation in mammalian development and disease. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2019, 20, 590–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Lienhard, M.; Grimm, C.; Morkel, M.; Herwig, R.; Chavez, L. MEDIPS: Genome-wide differential coverage analysis of sequencing data derived from DNA enrichment experiments. Bioinformatics 2014, 30, 284–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Sinclair, K.D.; Rutherford, K.M.D.; Wallace, J.M.; Brameld, J.M.; Stöger, R.; Alberio, R.; Sweetman, D.; Gardner, D.S.; Perry, V.E.A.; Adam, C.L.; et al. Epigenetics and developmental programming of welfare and production traits in farm animals. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2016, 28, 1443–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Rutherford, K.M.D.; Piastowska-Ciesielska, A.; Donald, R.D.; Robson, S.K.; Ison, S.H.; Jarvis, S.; Brunton, P.J.; Russell, J.A.; Lawrence, A.B. Prenatal stress produces anxiety prone female offspring and impaired maternal behaviour in the domestic pig. Physiol. Behav. 2014, 129, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Otten, W.; Kanitz, E.; Tuchscherer, M. The impact of pre-natal stress on offspring development in pigs. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 153, 907–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bernardino, T.; Tatemoto, P.; Morrone, B.; Rodrigues, P.H.M.; Zanella, A.J. Piglets born from sows fed high fibre diets during pregnancy are less aggressive prior to weaning. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0167363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Tatemoto, P.; Bernardino, T.; Alves, L.; Zanella, A.J. Sham-chewing in sows is associated with decreased fear responses in their offspring. Front. Vet. Sci. 2019, 6, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Tatemoto, P.; Bernardino, T.; Alves, L.; Cristina de Oliveira Souza, A.; Palme, R.; José Zanella, A. Environmental enrichment for pregnant sows modulates HPA-axis and behavior in the offspring. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2019, 220, 104854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sullivan, R.; Saez, F. Epididymosomes, prostasomes, and liposomes: Their roles in mammalian male reproductive physiology. Reproduction 2013, 146, R21–R35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Weaver, I.C.G.; Cervoni, N.; Champagne, F.A.; D’Alessio, A.C.; Sharma, S.; Seckl, J.R.; Dymov, S.; Szyf, M.; Meaney, M.J. Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior. Nat. Neurosci. 2004, 7, 847–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Champagne, F.A. Epigenetic mechanisms and the transgenerational effects of maternal care. Front. Neuroendocrinol. 2008, 29, 386–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Lacal, I.; Ventura, R. Epigenetic inheritance: Concepts, mechanisms and perspectives. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2018, 11, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Johnson, J.; Canning, J.; Kaneko, T.; Pru, J.K.; Tilly, J.L. Germline stem cells and follicular renewal in the postnatal mammalian ovary. Nature 2004, 430, 1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Johnson, J.; Bagley, J.; Skaznik-Wikiel, M.; Lee, H.J.; Adams, G.B.; Niikura, Y.; Tschudy, K.S.; Tilly, J.C.; Cortes, M.L.; Forkert, R.; et al. Oocyte generation in adult mammalian ovaries by putative germ cells in bone marrow and peripheral blood. Cell 2005, 122, 303–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Kyriazakis, I.; Whittemore, C.T. Development of the reproductive system during intra-uterine life. In Whittemore’s Science and Practice of Pig Production; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; p. 105. ISBN 9781405124485. [Google Scholar]
  85. Skvortsova, K.; Iovino, N.; Bogdanović, O. Functions and mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance in animals. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2018, 19, 774–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  86. Tuscher, J.J.; Day, J.J. Multigenerational epigenetic inheritance: One step forward, two generations back. Neurobiol. Dis. 2019, 132, 104591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Guerrero-Bosagna, C.; Settles, M.; Lucker, B.; Skinner, M.K. Epigenetic transgenerational actions of vinclozolin on promoter regions of the sperm epigenome. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e13100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Manikkam, M.; Guerrero-Bosagna, C.; Tracey, R.; Haque, M.M.; Skinner, M.K. Transgenerational actions of environmental compounds on reproductive disease and identification of epigenetic biomarkers of ancestral exposures. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e31901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Pistek, V.L.; Fürst, R.W.; Kliem, H.; Bauersachs, S.; Meyer, H.H.D.; Ulbrich, S.E. HOXA10 mRNA expression and promoter DNA methylation in female pig offspring after in utero estradiol-17β exposure. J. Steroid Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2013, 138, 435–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Posner, R.; Toker, I.A.; Antonova, O.; Star, E.; Anava, S.; Azmon, E.; Hendricks, M.; Bracha, S.; Gingold, H.; Rechavi, O. Neuronal small RNAs control behavior transgenerationally. Cell 2019, 177, 1814–1826.e15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Tarleton, B.J.; Wiley, A.A.; Bartol, F.F. Neonatal estradiol exposure alters uterine morphology and endometrial transcriptional activity in prepubertal gilts. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 2001, 21, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Niculescu, M.D.; Zeisel, S.H. Diet, methyl donors and DNA methylation: Interactions between dietary folate, methionine and choline. J. Nutr. 2002, 132, 2333–2335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Liu, X.; Wang, J.; Li, R.; Yang, X.; Sun, Q.; Albrecht, E.; Zhao, R. Maternal dietary protein affects transcriptional regulation of myostatin gene distinctively at weaning and finishing stages in skeletal muscle of Meishan pigs. Epigenetics 2011, 6, 899–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Altmann, S.; Murani, E.; Schwerin, M.; Metges, C.C.; Wimmers, K.; Ponsuksili, S. Maternal dietary protein restriction and excess affects offspring gene expression and methylation of non-SMC subunits of condensin i in liver and skeletal muscle. Epigenetics 2012, 7, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  95. Braunschweig, M.; Jagannathan, V.; Gutzwiller, A.; Bee, G. Investigations on transgenerational epigenetic response down the male line in F2 pigs. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e30583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Hu, Y.; Hu, L.; Gong, D.; Lu, H.; Xuan, Y.; Wang, R.; Wu, D.; Chen, D.; Zhang, K.; Gao, F.; et al. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis in jejunum of Sus scrofa with intrauterine growth restriction. Mol. Genet. Genom. 2018, 293, 807–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Ponsuksili, S.; Trakooljul, N.; Basavaraj, S.; Hadlich, F.; Murani, E.; Wimmers, K. Epigenome-wide skeletal muscle DNA methylation profiles at the background of distinct metabolic types and ryanodine receptor variation in pigs. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wang, M.; Ibeagha-Awemu, E.M. Impacts of epigenetic processes on the health and productivity of livestock. Front. Genet. 2021, 11, 613636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Yu, X.X.; Liu, Y.H.; Liu, X.M.; Wang, P.C.; Liu, S.; Miao, J.K.; Du, Z.Q.; Yang, C.X. Ascorbic acid induces global epigenetic reprogramming to promote meiotic maturation and developmental competence of porcine oocytes. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 6132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Taweechaipaisankul, A.; Jin, J.; Lee, S.; Kim, G.; Suh, Y.; Ahn, M.; Park, S.; Lee, B.; Lee, B. Improved early development of porcine cloned embryos by treatment with quisinostat, a potent histone deacetylase inhibitor. J. Reprod. Dev. 2019, 65, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Rempel, L.A.; Parrish, J.J.; Miles, J.R. Genes associated with chromatin modification within the swine placenta are differentially expressed due to factors associated with season. Front. Genet. 2020, 11, 1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Gao, F.; Zhang, J.; Jiang, P.; Gong, D.; Wang, J.W.; Xia, Y.; Østergaard, M.V.; Wang, J.; Sangild, P.T. Marked methylation changes in intestinal genes during the perinatal period of preterm neonates. BMC Genom. 2014, 15, 716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  103. Khezri, A.; Narud, B.; Stenseth, E.B.; Johannisson, A.; Myromslien, F.D.; Gaustad, A.H.; Wilson, R.C.; Lyle, R.; Morrell, J.M.; Kommisrud, E.; et al. DNA methylation patterns vary in boar sperm cells with different levels of DNA fragmentation. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Wang, X.; Kadarmideen, H.N. Characterization of global DNA methylation in different gene regions reveals candidate biomarkers in pigs with high and low levels of boar taint. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Pértille, F.; Alvarez-rodriguez, M.; da Silva, A.N.; Barranco, I.; Roca, J.; Guerrero-bosagna, C.; Rodriguez-martinez, H. Sperm methylome profiling can discern fertility levels in the porcine biomedical model. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 2679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Tatemoto, P.; Bernardino, T.; Morrone, B.; Queiroz, M.R. Stereotypic behavior in sows is related to emotionality changes in the offspring. Front. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Kuzmuk, K.N.; Schook, L.B. Pigs as a model for biomedical sciences. In The Genetics of the Pig; Rothschild, M.F., Ruvinsky, A., Eds.; CABI: Urbana, IL, USA, 2011; pp. 426–444. ISBN 9781845937560. [Google Scholar]
  108. Martínez-Miró, S.; Tecles, F.; Ramón, M.; Escribano, D.; Hernández, F.; Madrid, J.; Orengo, J.; Martínez-Subiela, S.; Manteca, X.; Cerón, J.J. Causes, consequences and biomarkers of stress in swine: An update. BMC Vet. Res. 2016, 12, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Fagerberg, L.; Hallstrom, B.M.; Oksvold, P.; Kampf, C.; Djureinovic, D.; Odeberg, J.; Habuka, M.; Tahmasebpoor, S.; Danielsson, A.; Edlund, K.; et al. Analysis of the human tissue-specific expression by genome-wide integration of transcriptomics and antibody-based proteomics. Mol. Cell. Proteom. 2014, 13, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Lunney, J.K.; Van Goor, A.; Walker, K.E.; Hailstock, T.; Franklin, J.; Dai, C. Importance of the pig as a human biomedical model. Science 2021, 13, 5758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Collier, C.T.; Williams, P.N.; Carroll, J.A.; Welsh, T.H.; Laurenz, J.C. Effect of maternal restraint stress during gestation on temporal lipopolysaccharide-induced neuroendocrine and immune responses of progeny. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 2011, 40, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Schachtschneider, K.M.; Welge, M.E.; Auvil, L.S.; Chaki, S.; Rund, L.A.; Madsen, O.; Elmore, M.R.P.; Johnson, R.W.; Groenen, M.A.M.; Schook, L.B. Altered hippocampal epigenetic regulation underlying reduced cognitive development in response to early life environmental insults. Genes 2020, 11, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  113. Yuan, X.L.; Zhang, Z.; Li, B.; Gao, N.; Zhang, H.; Sangild, P.T.; Li, J.Q. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis of the porcine hypothalamus-pituitary-ovary axis. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Yuan, X.; Zhou, X.; Chen, Z.; He, Y.; Kong, Y.; Ye, S.; Gao, N.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, H.; Li, J. Genome-wide DNA methylation analysis of hypothalamus during the onset of puberty in gilts. Front. Genet. 2019, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Witek, P.; Grzesiak, M.; Kotula-Balak, M.; Koziorowski, M.; Slomczynska, M.; Knapczyk-Stwora, K. Effect of neonatal exposure to endocrine-active compounds on epigenetic regulation of gene expression in corpus luteum of gilts. Theriogenology 2020, 159, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Yuan, X.; Ye, S.; Chen, Z.; Pan, X.; Huang, S.; Li, Z.; Zhong, Y.; Gao, N.; Zhang, H.; Li, J.; et al. Dynamic DNA methylation of ovaries during pubertal transition in gilts. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Sajjanar, B.; Trakooljul, N.; Wimmers, K.; Ponsuksili, S. DNA methylation analysis of porcine mammary epithelial cells reveals differentially methylated loci associated with immune response against Escherichia coli challenge. BMC Genom. 2019, 20, 623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Simões, M.; Rino, J.; Pinheiro, I.; Martins, C.; Ferreira, F. Alterations of nuclear architecture and epigenetic signatures during African swine fever virus infection. Viruses 2015, 7, 4978–4996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Knipe, D.M.; Lieberman, P.M.; Jung, J.U.; McBride, A.A.; Morris, K.V.; Ott, M.; Margolis, D.; Nieto, A.; Nevels, M.; Parks, R.J.; et al. Snapshots: Chromatin control of viral infection. Virology 2013, 435, 141–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. John, R.M.; Rougeulle, C. Developmental epigenetics: Phenotype and the flexible epigenome. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2018, 6, 130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Warde-Farley, D.; Donaldson, S.L.; Comes, O.; Zuberi, K.; Badrawi, R.; Chao, P.; Franz, M.; Grouios, C.; Kazi, F.; Lopes, C.T.; et al. The GeneMANIA prediction server: Biological network integration for gene prioritization and predicting gene function. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38, 214–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Yamada, K.; Iwayama, Y.; Toyota, T.; Ohnishi, T.; Ohba, H.; Maekawa, M.; Yoshikawa, T. Association study of the KCNJ3 gene as a susceptibility candidate for schizophrenia in the Chinese population. Hum. Genet. 2012, 131, 443–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Zarrei, M.; Fehlings, D.L.; Mawjee, K.; Switzer, L.; Thiruvahindrapuram, B.; Walker, S.; Merico, D.; Casallo, G.; Uddin, M.; MacDonald, J.R.; et al. De novo and rare inherited copy-number variations in the hemiplegic form of cerebral palsy. Genet. Med. 2018, 20, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Capera, J.; Serrano-Novillo, C.; Navarro-Pérez, M.; Cassinelli, S.; Felipe, A. The potassium channel odyssey: Mechanisms of traffic and membrane arrangement. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Tyson, J.R.; Snutch, T.P. Molecular nature of voltage-gated calcium channels: Structure and species comparison. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Membr. Transp. Signal. 2013, 2, 181–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Svoboda, L.K.; Reddie, K.G.; Zhang, L.; Vesely, E.D.; Williams, E.S.; Schumacher, S.M.; O’Connell, R.P.; Shaw, R.; Day, S.M.; Anumonwo, J.M.; et al. Redox-sensitive sulfenic acid modification regulates surface expression of the cardiovascular voltage-gated potassium channel Kv1.5. Circ. Res. 2012, 111, 842–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Jeevaratnam, K.; Chadda, K.R.; Huang, C.L.H.; Camm, A.J. Cardiac potassium channels: Physiological insights for targeted therapy. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. Ther. 2018, 23, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  128. Ashcroft, F.M.; Rorsman, P. KATP channels and islet hormone secretion: New insights and controversies. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2013, 9, 660–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  129. Comes, N.; Serrano-Albarrás, A.; Capera, J.; Serrano-Novillo, C.; Condom, E.; Ramón, Y.; Cajal, S.; Ferreres, J.C.; Felipe, A. Involvement of potassium channels in the progression of cancer to a more malignant phenotype. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr. 2015, 1848, 2477–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  130. Szabò, I.; Zoratti, M.; Gulbins, E. Contribution of voltage-gated potassium channels to the regulation of apoptosis. FEBS Lett. 2010, 584, 2049–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  131. Sun, P.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, F.; Wang, L.; Yamamoto, R.; Sugai, T.; Kato, N. Fear conditioning suppresses large-conductance calcium-activated potassium channels in lateral amygdala neurons. Physiol. Behav. 2015, 138, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Guo, Y.Y.; Liu, S.B.; Cui, G.-B.; Ma, L.; Feng, B.; Xing, J.H.; Yang, Q.; Li, X.Q.; Wu, Y.; Xiong, L.Z.; et al. Acute stress induces down-regulation of large-conductance Ca 2+-activated potassium channels in the lateral amygdala. J. Physiol. 2012, 590, 875–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Intergenerational and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in porcine models. When a swine (F0) is exposed to an environmental insult, somatic and germ cells will potentially affect their epigenome. In addition, if it is a pregnant sow, the fetus (F1) and its germ cells—which will give rise to a next generation—will be directly affected (F2). So, if these epigenetic marks contained in the fetus’s germ cells remains for subsequent generations (F3 and beyond), there will be a transgenerational epigenetic event.
Figure 1. Intergenerational and transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in porcine models. When a swine (F0) is exposed to an environmental insult, somatic and germ cells will potentially affect their epigenome. In addition, if it is a pregnant sow, the fetus (F1) and its germ cells—which will give rise to a next generation—will be directly affected (F2). So, if these epigenetic marks contained in the fetus’s germ cells remains for subsequent generations (F3 and beyond), there will be a transgenerational epigenetic event.
Animals 12 00032 g001
Figure 2. A possible pathway of epigenetic transmission in industrial pig production systems.
Figure 2. A possible pathway of epigenetic transmission in industrial pig production systems.
Animals 12 00032 g002
Figure 3. Prediction of the gene network (A) and most cited pathways (B) in which the genes play a role using the human genome as a reference.
Figure 3. Prediction of the gene network (A) and most cited pathways (B) in which the genes play a role using the human genome as a reference.
Animals 12 00032 g003
Table 1. Studies related to swine epigenetics in different experimental contexts.
Table 1. Studies related to swine epigenetics in different experimental contexts.
MechanismGenerationSwine ModelContextReference
Direct exposureF0BoarsInvestigation of methylation patterns of testis samples and their relationship with the boar taint flavour.[104]
Boar’s semenCorrelation between different parameters of sperm DNA integrity and their methylation patterns.[103]
DMRs are more efficient at discerning the fertility of boars’ ejaculate than single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) using reduced representation of the methylated DNA.[105]
GiltsThe epigenetic dynamic in hypothalamus-pituitary-ovary axis and its tissue-specific manner to establish the biological functions.[113]
The dynamics of hypothalamic methylation at puberty.[114]
Long-term effects of endocrine-active compounds on corpus luteum of swine females exposed during early life period.[115]
Porcine embryosInvestigation of the effects of histone deacetylase inhibitors on the in vitro development of porcine embryos derived from somatic cell nuclear transfer.[100]
Porcine oocytesThe effects of vitamin C in the regulation of global epigenetic modifications at DNA, RNA and histones levels and its potential for oocyte maturation and developmental competence.[99]
Porcine ovaryEpigenetic mechanisms of ovarian development during the transition from puberty and sexual maturation.[116]
Intergenerational epigeneticsF0–F1Pregnant sows and its offspringEffects of exposure to low or high doses of estrogen during pregnancy and its role in female reproductive organs.[89]
The immediate and long-term effects of maternal dietary protein affecting gene expression of offspring.[93]
Restriction and excess dietary protein during pregnancy alters the offspring’s epigenetic marks and influences gene expression.[94]
Boar’s semen and sow’s placentaThe role of breeding season in altering epigenetic components of the placenta and its consequences to foetal development.[101]
Transgenerational epigeneticsF0–F2BoarsTransgenerational response of a methyl-enriched diet to boars and its responses on carcass traits, gene expression and DNA methylation.[95]
Table 2. Effect of stress on pigs’ genome subjected to different environmental insults. The approaches used to access the methylated DNA was whole genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) or reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS).
Table 2. Effect of stress on pigs’ genome subjected to different environmental insults. The approaches used to access the methylated DNA was whole genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS) or reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS).
Stress SourceAnalysed SampleApproachEffect of StressBiomarkerReference
Heat stressLongissimus dorsi muscleWGBSDMRs in important genes involved in muscle development, metabolism, immunity, and stress response.RYR3, PGK1, CRYAB and FHL1C[15]
Intrauterine insultSmall intestineRRBSDMRs in several genes involved in cell development and immunity.IRAK1, AIFM1, PIM2, BCAP31, MTMR1, SOX3, TWIST2 and HAUS7[96]
Sanitary challengeMammary epithelial cellRRBSDMRs in functional genes of the innate and adaptive immune response.SDF4, SRXN1, CSF1 and CXCL14[117]
Mid intestineRRBSDMRS in genes involved in structural pathways of the cells with outcomes in the immature prenatal intestine. CYP2W1, GPR146, TOP1MT and CEND1[102]
HippocampusRRBSDMRs in genes associated with blood brain barrier permeability and regulatory T-cell activation, which are reported to cause reductions in cognitive development.VWF, LRRC32, NGF, GNG13, PIK3R5, KCNJ6, KCNJ5 and AKT2[112]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nery da Silva, A.; Silva Araujo, M.; Pértille, F.; Zanella, A.J. How Epigenetics Can Enhance Pig Welfare? Animals 2022, 12, 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12010032

AMA Style

Nery da Silva A, Silva Araujo M, Pértille F, Zanella AJ. How Epigenetics Can Enhance Pig Welfare? Animals. 2022; 12(1):32. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12010032

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nery da Silva, Arthur, Michelle Silva Araujo, Fábio Pértille, and Adroaldo José Zanella. 2022. "How Epigenetics Can Enhance Pig Welfare?" Animals 12, no. 1: 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12010032

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop