Back on the farm, early knowledge about the pig genome led to the discovery in 1991 of a gene involved in porcine stress syndrome, in which the stress of overheating, being moved or even having sex causes the animals to die suddenly. It then became possible to test for the gene and select pig stocks free of it.

Having the full genome should also help investigators to breed out susceptibility to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS), a viral disease costing the US pig industry US$600 million per year. The PRRS Host Genetics Consortium, a network of US research groups, has identified a region on one chromosome that affects levels of virus in the blood during infection. Archibald, who works on PRRS, says that the high-quality genome sequence should help investigators zero in on the genes responsible.

But the pig genome is not just about applications. Lead co-author Martien Groenen, a genome researcher from Wageningen University in the Netherlands, has resequenced the genomes of scores of different strains of wild and domestic pigs, and used the information to show that the pig was domesticated independently in Asia and Europe. He has also started to work out which genes were involved in the selection of desired traits — such as a longer spine to give more bacon — on different continents. “It’s curiosity-driven research, but it may also help animal breeders in the future,” he says.

This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on November 14, 2012.

9 Comments

1. 1. MaxWestby 06:14 AM 11/15/12

   Hello Scientific American. I am the author of the photo of Duroc pigs using in this article. I am annoyed - this is a flagrant abuse of my copyright under the CC 2.0 license because this article is for commercial use. I wish therefore to be paid for its use. I note that the original Nature article used an Agency photo for which they of course paid.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. blackdog28753 07:54 AM 11/15/12

   Swine flu anyone ?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. ZergMinded in reply to MaxWestby 09:59 PM 12/5/12

   Dear Mr Westby,
   Your picture is benefiting the greater good, the good of society and of education. The picture you wish to be paid for is promoting an article which may influence a child who will become the next great genetic researcher. Without the attention-grabbing picture (the reason I read this article, mind you) who knows how many readers would have passed off this article as "nothing special"?
   I find request for money disrespectful to the scientific community, and to any community. You should be ashamed of yourself for your words and actions against Scientific American and Progress itself.
   Yours truly, Sean B. Lawrence

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. MaxWestby 04:00 AM 12/6/12

   Disrespectful? - it is you who are using my photo without permission (contrary to my CC licence) and for financial gain - or is Scientific American now a non-profit organisation?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. jkilwin 08:18 AM 12/6/12

   @ZergMinded
   >The picture you wish to be paid for is promoting an article which may influence a child who will become the next great genetic researcher.
   wow, what a reach
   is that seriously the best excuse you could come up with?
   the picture he wishes to be paid for was used against the terms of the license it's under and you're just being a baby about it
   "bawww I should get to do whatever I want because it could potentially help someone somewhere eventually maybe"
   I don't know why I'm even taking you seriously considering your Starcraft-inspired name
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. MaxWestby 08:59 AM 12/6/12

   thanks jklwin ...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. pyam in reply to MaxWestby 06:03 PM 12/10/12

   I was just alerted to your objections. Our use of your image does not constitute “commercial use” in the legal sense, because the freely available story does not serve as an advertisement (a commercial) or a means to sell a product or service (as 2 media lawyers have informed me).
   
   In any event, I asked our production team to remove your image in accordance with your implied wishes. The image should come down shortly if it hasn’t already.
   
   I am sorry about the misunderstanding. To avoid future confusion, I suggest that you modify your Flickr preference settings.
   
   Sincerely,
   
   Philip Yam
   Managing Editor, Online
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. MaxWestby 11:09 AM 12/11/12

   OK - well thanks Philip ;-)
   
   doesn't constitute commercial use in the legal sense? - you are using it to help sell Scientific American. Of course US lawyers are very astute as the world knows only too well. (the Strauss-Kahn affair and his $6M settlement have been followed closely here in France!)
   
   I won't alter my CC2.0 licence on Flickr as most people do respect it ...

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. pyam in reply to MaxWestby 05:52 PM 12/12/12

   You’re welcome, Max.
   
   Actually, as the Creative Commons license site states, a use by a commercial entity does not necessarily constitute “commercial use,” and a use by a nonprofit does not automatically constitute “noncommercial use.” At the moment, there are no official definitions, unfortunately.
   
   So for now, like fair use and pornography, commercial/noncommercial use has to be interpreted. Sometimes, it can be clear: if we ran your photo of pigs in a story about, say, the value of our brand of organic bacon, then most people would probably agree that such content is a substantively different kind of content than what is posted here and deem it as commercial use.
   
   I understand that the Creative Commons community is working on better definitions of noncommercial use in its next licensing version (4.0). That (or a case that sets a legal precedent) would be a great help in clarifying intentions and preventing misunderstandings between creator and publisher.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this