Search
2026 Volume 19
Article Contents
ARTICLE   Open Access    

m6A-mediated epitranscriptomic remodeling coordinates lipid metabolism and transcriptional networks during porcine adipocyte differentiation

  • # Authors contributed equally: Liqiang Xie, Juan Huang, Tianxia Liu, Yang Liu

More Information
  • Received: 25 September 2025
    Revised: 10 November 2025
    Accepted: 02 December 2025
    Published online: 27 January 2026
    Epigenetics Insights  19 Article number: e002 (2026)  |  Cite this article
  • N6-methyladenosine (m6A) is the predominant internal modification occurring within RNA molecules, but its role in porcine adipogenesis remains poorly understood. A high-quality transcriptome-wide m6A methylation map was therefore generated, and the m6A regulator expression pattern profiled during the differentiation of stromal vascular fraction cells into white adipocytes. It was found that the demethylases FTO and ALKBH5 were highly expressed in mature adipocytes, accompanied by widespread m6A hypo-methylation. The hypo-methylated gene set was enriched with regulators of metabolism and transcription, and their downregulation suggests that demethylation contributes to transcriptional repression during terminal differentiation. Notably, many hypo-methylated and downregulated genes overlapped with cancer-related pathways, including therapeutic targets such as ABL1, BRCA2, MET, and PML. MeRIP-qPCR and RT-qPCR validation confirmed these trends. Together, the present findings demonstrate that m6A demethylation reshapes gene expression to regulate porcine adipocyte differentiation and provides insights into the potential crosstalk between lipid metabolism and oncogenic signaling.
  • 加载中
  • Supplementary Table S1 Primers used in this study.
    Supplementary Table S2 Sequencing reads statistics of MeRIP-Seq in SVF and WAT.
    Supplementary Table S3 List of diff_methylated-diff_expressed genes.
    Supplementary Fig. S1 Expression dynamics of m6A writers, erasers, and readers during porcine adipocyte differentiation.
    Supplementary Fig. S2 Transcriptomic reprogramming during porcine adipocyte differentiation.
    Supplementary Fig. S3 Transcriptome-wide distribution and features of m⁶A in porcine adipocytes.
    Supplementary Fig. S4 Differential m6A methylation during porcine adipocyte differentiation.
    Supplementary Fig. S5 m6A demethylation correlates with transcriptome reprogramming during adipocyte differentiation.
  • [1] Wood JD, Enser M, Fisher AV, Nute GR, Sheard PR, et al. 2008. Fat deposition, fatty acid composition and meat quality: a review. Meat Science 78:343−358 doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.07.019

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2] Zheng Q, Lin J, Huang J, Zhang H, Zhang R, et al. 2017. Reconstitution of UCP1 using CRISPR/Cas9 in the white adipose tissue of pigs decreases fat deposition and improves thermogenic capacity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114:E9474−E9482 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707853114

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3] Meurens F, Summerfield A, Nauwynck H, Saif L, Gerdts V. 2012. The pig: a model for human infectious diseases. Trends in Microbiology 20:50−57 doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2011.11.002

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4] Fan N, Lai L. 2013. Genetically modified pig models for human diseases. Journal of Genetics and Genomics 40:67−73 doi: 10.1016/j.jgg.2012.07.014

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5] Rong P, Mu Y, Wang M, Chen L, Liu F, et al. 2025. Targeting IGF1 to alleviate obesity through regulating energy expenditure and fat deposition. Science China Life Sciences 68:1662−1675 doi: 10.1007/s11427-024-2768-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [6] Keles U, Ow JR, Kuentzel KB, Zhao LN, Kaldis P. 2022. Liver-derived metabolites as signaling molecules in fatty liver disease. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 80:4 doi: 10.1007/s00018-022-04658-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7] Zhao BS, Roundtree IA, He C. 2017. Post-transcriptional gene regulation by mRNA modifications. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 18:31−42 doi: 10.1038/nrm.2016.132

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8] Boulias K, Greer EL. 2023. Biological roles of adenine methylation in RNA. Nature Reviews Genetics 24:143−160 doi: 10.1038/s41576-022-00534-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9] Dominissini D, Moshitch-Moshkovitz S, Schwartz S, Salmon-Divon M, Ungar L, et al. 2012. Topology of the human and mouse m6A RNA methylomes revealed by m6A-seq. Nature 485:201−206 doi: 10.1038/nature11112

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10] Linder B, Grozhik AV, Olarerin-George AO, Meydan C, Mason CE, et al. 2015. Single-nucleotide-resolution mapping of m6A and m6Am throughout the transcriptome. Nature Methods 12:767−772 doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3453

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11] Liu J, Yue Y, Han D, Wang X, Fu Y, et al. 2014. A METTL3−METTL14 complex mediates mammalian nuclear RNA N6-adenosine methylation. Nature Chemical Biology 10:93−95 doi: 10.1038/nchembio.1432

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12] Liu J, Dou X, Chen C, Chen C, Liu C, et al. 2020. N6-methyladenosine of chromosome-associated regulatory RNA regulates chromatin state and transcription. Science 367:580−586 doi: 10.1126/science.aay6018

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13] Jia G, Fu Y, Zhao X, Dai Q, Zheng G, et al. 2011. N6-methyladenosine in nuclear RNA is a major substrate of the obesity-associated FTO. Nature Chemical Biology 7:885−887 doi: 10.1038/nchembio.687

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14] Zheng G, Dahl JA, Niu Y, Fedorcsak P, Huang CM, et al. 2013. ALKBH5 is a mammalian RNA demethylase that impacts RNA metabolism and mouse fertility. Molecular Cell 49:18−29 doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.10.015

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15] Wang X, Zhao BS, Roundtree IA, Lu Z, Han D, et al. 2015. N6-methyladenosine modulates messenger RNA translation efficiency. Cell 161:1388−1399 doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.05.014

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16] Wang X, Lu Z, Gomez A, Hon GC, Yue Y, et al. 2014. N6-methyladenosine-dependent regulation of messenger RNA stability. Nature 505:117−120 doi: 10.1038/nature12730

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [17] Shi H, Wang X, Lu Z, Zhao BS, Ma H, et al. 2017. YTHDF3 facilitates translation and decay of N6-methyladenosine-modified RNA. Cell Research 27:315−328 doi: 10.1038/cr.2017.15

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [18] Xu C, Wang X, Liu K, Roundtree IA, Tempel W, et al. 2014. Structural basis for selective binding of m6A RNA by the YTHDC1 YTH domain. Nature Chemical Biology 10:927−929 doi: 10.1038/nchembio.1654

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19] Hsu PJ, Zhu Y, Ma H, Guo Y, Shi X, et al. 2017. Ythdc2 is an N6-methyladenosine binding protein that regulates mammalian spermatogenesis. Cell Research 27:1115−1127 doi: 10.1038/cr.2017.99

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20] Huang H, Weng H, Sun W, Qin X, Shi H, et al. 2018. Recognition of RNA N6-methyladenosine by IGF2BP proteins enhances mRNA stability and translation. Nature Cell Biology 20:285−295 doi: 10.1038/s41556-018-0045-z

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21] Xiao W, Adhikari S, Dahal U, Chen YS, Hao YJ, et al. 2016. Nuclear m6A reader YTHDC1 regulates mRNA splicing. Molecular Cell 61:507−519 doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.01.012

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22] Roundtree IA, Luo GZ, Zhang Z, Wang X, Zhou T, et al. 2017. YTHDC1 mediates nuclear export of N6-methyladenosine methylated mRNAs. eLife 6:e31311 doi: 10.7554/eLife.31311

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23] Liu N, Dai Q, Zheng G, He C, Parisien M, et al. 2015. N6-methyladenosine-dependent RNA structural switches regulate RNA−protein interactions. Nature 518:560−564 doi: 10.1038/nature14234

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24] Roost C, Lynch SR, Batista PJ, Qu K, Chang HY, et al. 2015. Structure and thermodynamics of N6-methyladenosine in RNA: a spring-loaded base modification. Journal of the American Chemical Society 137:2107−2115 doi: 10.1021/ja513080v

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25] Wang X, Wu R, Liu Y, Zhao Y, Bi Z, et al. 2020. m6A mRNA methylation controls autophagy and adipogenesis by targeting Atg5 and Atg7. Autophagy 16:1221−1235 doi: 10.1080/15548627.2019.1659617

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [26] Li Y, Zhang Y, Zhang T, Ping X, Wang D, et al. 2023. Rna M6a methylation regulates glycolysis of beige fat and contributes to systemic metabolic homeostasis. Advanced Science 10:e2300436 doi: 10.1002/advs.202300436

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [27] Wu R, Guo G, Bi Z, Liu Y, Zhao Y, et al. 2019. m6A methylation modulates adipogenesis through JAK2-STAT3-C/EBPβ signaling. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Regulatory Mechanisms 1862:796−806 doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2019.06.008

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28] Wu R, Chen Y, Liu Y, Zhuang L, Chen W, et al. 2021. m6A methylation promotes white-to-beige fat transition by facilitating Hif1a translation. EMBO Reports 22:e52348 doi: 10.15252/embr.202052348

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [29] Chao M, Wang M, Han H, Liu Y, Sun X, et al. 2024. Profiling of m6A methylation in porcine intramuscular adipocytes and unravelling PHKG1 represses porcine intramuscular lipid deposition in an m6A-dependent manner. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 272:132728 doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.132728

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30] Lin J, Cao C, Tao C, Ye R, Dong M, et al. 2017. Cold adaptation in pigs depends on UCP3 in beige adipocytes. Journal of Molecular Cell Biology 9:364−375 doi: 10.1093/jmcb/mjx018

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31] Chen S, Zhou Y, Chen Y, Gu J. 2018. fastp: an ultra-fast all-in-one FASTQ preprocessor. Bioinformatics 34:i884−i890 doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty560

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [32] Ewels P, Magnusson M, Lundin S, Käller M. 2016. MultiQC: summarize analysis results for multiple tools and samples in a single report. Bioinformatics 32:3047−3048 doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw354

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33] Warr A, Affara N, Aken B, Beiki H, Bickhart DM, et al. 2020. An improved pig reference genome sequence to enable pig genetics and genomics research. GigaScience 9:giaa051 doi: 10.1093/gigascience/giaa051

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [34] Kim D, Paggi JM, Park C, Bennett C, Salzberg SL. 2019. Graph-based genome alignment and genotyping with HISAT2 and HISAT-genotype. Nature Biotechnology 37:907−915 doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0201-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35] Liao Y, Smyth GK, Shi W. 2013. The Subread aligner: fast, accurate and scalable read mapping by seed-and-vote. Nucleic Acids Research 41:e108 doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt214

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [36] Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. 2014. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biology 15:550 doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [37] Ramírez F, Dündar F, Diehl S, Grüning BA, Manke T. 2014. deepTools: a flexible platform for exploring deep-sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Research 42:W187−W191 doi: 10.1093/nar/gku365

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [38] Yu G, Wang LG, Han Y, He QY. 2012. clusterProfiler: an R package for comparing biological themes among gene clusters. Omics 16:284−287 doi: 10.1089/omi.2011.0118

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [39] Yu G, Wang LG, He QY. 2015. ChIPseeker: an R/Bioconductor package for ChIP peak annotation, comparison and visualization. Bioinformatics 31:2382−2383 doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv145

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40] Liu L, Zhang SW, Huang Y, Meng J. 2017. QNB: differential RNA methylation analysis for count-based small-sample sequencing data with a quad-negative binomial model. BMC Bioinformatics 18:387 doi: 10.1186/s12859-017-1808-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [41] Heinz S, Benner C, Spann N, Bertolino E, Lin YC, et al. 2010. Simple combinations of lineage-determining transcription factors prime cis-regulatory elements required for macrophage and B cell identities. Molecular Cell 38:576−589 doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.05.004

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [42] Quinlan AR, Hall IM. 2010. BEDTools: a flexible suite of utilities for comparing genomic features. Bioinformatics 26:841−842 doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq033

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [43] Kanehisa M, Furumichi M, Sato Y, Ishiguro-Watanabe M, Tanabe M. 2021. KEGG: integrating viruses and cellular organisms. Nucleic Acids Research 49:D545−D551 doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa970

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [44] Fischer J, Koch L, Emmerling C, Vierkotten J, Peters T, et al. 2009. Inactivation of the Fto gene protects from obesity. Nature 458:894−898 doi: 10.1038/nature07848

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [45] Tontonoz P, Spiegelman BM. 2008. Fat and beyond: the diverse biology of PPARgamma. Annual Review of Biochemistry 77:289−312 doi: 10.1146/annurev.biochem.77.061307.091829

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [46] Meyer KD, Saletore Y, Zumbo P, Elemento O, Mason CE, et al. 2012. Comprehensive analysis of mRNA methylation reveals enrichment in 3' UTRs and near stop codons. Cell 149:1635−1646 doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.05.003

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [47] Mao Y, Dong L, Liu XM, Guo J, Ma H, et al. 2019. m6A in mRNA coding regions promotes translation via the RNA helicase-containing YTHDC2. Nature Communications 10:5332 doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-13317-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [48] Zhang H, Shi X, Huang T, Zhao X, Chen W, et al. 2020. Dynamic landscape and evolution of m6A methylation in human. Nucleic Acids Research 48:6251−6264 doi: 10.1093/nar/gkaa347

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [49] Mandl M, Wagner SA, Hatzmann FM, Mitterberger-Vogt MC, Zwierzina ME, et al. 2019. Sprouty1 is a weight-loss target gene in human adipose stem/progenitor cells that is mandatory for the initiation of adipogenesis. Cell Death & Disease 10:411 doi: 10.1038/s41419-019-1657-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [50] Ding F, Zheng P, Yan XY, Chen HJ, Fang HT, et al. 2024. Adipocyte-secreted PRELP promotes adipocyte differentiation and adipose tissue fibrosis by binding with p75(NTR) to activate FAK/MAPK signaling. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 279:135376 doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.135376

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [51] Lefterova MI, Haakonsson AK, Lazar MA, Mandrup S. 2014. PPARγ and the global map of adipogenesis and beyond. Trends in Endocrinology & Metabolism 25:293−302 doi: 10.1016/j.tem.2014.04.001

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [52] Guo L, Li X, Tang QQ. 2015. Transcriptional regulation of adipocyte differentiation: a central role for CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein (C/EBP) β. Journal of Biological Chemistry 290:755−761 doi: 10.1074/jbc.R114.619957

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [53] Lowe CE, O'Rahilly S, Rochford JJ. 2011. Adipogenesis at a glance. Journal of Cell Science 124:2681−2686 doi: 10.1242/jcs.079699

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [54] Kang Q, Zhu X, Ren D, Ky A, MacDougald OA, et al. 2023. Adipose METTL14-elicited N6-methyladenosine promotes obesity, insulin resistance, and NAFLD through suppressing β adrenergic signaling and lipolysis. Advanced Science 10:e2301645 doi: 10.1002/advs.202301645

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [55] Merkestein M, Laber S, McMurray F, Andrew D, Sachse G, et al. 2015. FTO influences adipogenesis by regulating mitotic clonal expansion. Nature Communications 6:6792 doi: 10.1038/ncomms7792

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [56] Chao X, Guo L, Ye C, Liu A, Wang X, et al. 2024. ALKBH5 regulates chicken adipogenesis by mediating LCAT mRNA stability depending on m6A modification. BMC Genomics 25:634 doi: 10.1186/s12864-024-10537-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [57] Wu Q, Li B, Li Z, Li J, Sun S, et al. 2019. Cancer-associated adipocytes: key players in breast cancer progression. Journal of Hematology & Oncology 12:95 doi: 10.1186/s13045-019-0778-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [58] Attané C, Muller C. 2020. Drilling for oil: tumor-surrounding adipocytes fueling cancer. Trends in Cancer 6:593−604 doi: 10.1016/j.trecan.2020.03.001

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [59] Cha YJ, Kim ES, Koo JS. 2018. Tumor-associated macrophages and crown-like structures in adipose tissue in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 170:15−25 doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4722-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [60] Liu XM, Zhou J, Mao Y, Ji Q, Qian SB. 2019. Programmable RNA N6-methyladenosine editing by CRISPR-Cas9 conjugates. Nature Chemical Biology 15:865−871 doi: 10.1038/s41589-019-0327-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [61] Wilson C, Chen PJ, Miao Z, Liu DR. 2020. Programmable m6A modification of cellular RNAs with a Cas13-directed methyltransferase. Nature Biotechnology 38:1431−1440 doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0572-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [62] Xiang JF, Yang Q, Liu CX, Wu M, Chen LL, et al. 2018. N6-methyladenosines modulate A-to-I RNA editing. Molecular Cell 69:126−135.E6 doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2017.12.006

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [63] Xia Z, Tang M, Ma J, Zhang H, Gimple RC, et al. 2021. Epitranscriptomic editing of the RNA N6-methyladenosine modification by dCasRx conjugated methyltransferase and demethylase. Nucleic Acids Research 49:7361−7374 doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab517

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Xie L, Huang J, Liu T, Liu Y, Wang Q, et al. 2026. m6A-mediated epitranscriptomic remodeling coordinates lipid metabolism and transcriptional networks during porcine adipocyte differentiation. Epigenetics Insights 19: e002 doi: 10.48130/epi-0025-0016
    Xie L, Huang J, Liu T, Liu Y, Wang Q, et al. 2026. m6A-mediated epitranscriptomic remodeling coordinates lipid metabolism and transcriptional networks during porcine adipocyte differentiation. Epigenetics Insights 19: e002 doi: 10.48130/epi-0025-0016

Figures(6)

Article Metrics

Article views(341) PDF downloads(68)

ARTICLE   Open Access    

m6A-mediated epitranscriptomic remodeling coordinates lipid metabolism and transcriptional networks during porcine adipocyte differentiation

Epigenetics Insights  19 Article number: e002  (2026)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: N6-methyladenosine (m6A) is the predominant internal modification occurring within RNA molecules, but its role in porcine adipogenesis remains poorly understood. A high-quality transcriptome-wide m6A methylation map was therefore generated, and the m6A regulator expression pattern profiled during the differentiation of stromal vascular fraction cells into white adipocytes. It was found that the demethylases FTO and ALKBH5 were highly expressed in mature adipocytes, accompanied by widespread m6A hypo-methylation. The hypo-methylated gene set was enriched with regulators of metabolism and transcription, and their downregulation suggests that demethylation contributes to transcriptional repression during terminal differentiation. Notably, many hypo-methylated and downregulated genes overlapped with cancer-related pathways, including therapeutic targets such as ABL1, BRCA2, MET, and PML. MeRIP-qPCR and RT-qPCR validation confirmed these trends. Together, the present findings demonstrate that m6A demethylation reshapes gene expression to regulate porcine adipocyte differentiation and provides insights into the potential crosstalk between lipid metabolism and oncogenic signaling.

    • Pigs (Sus scrofa domesticus) are a major source of high-quality, nutritious meat worldwide. However, excessive fat deposition adversely affects pork quality, production efficiency, and growth performance[1,2]. Beyond agriculture, pigs are also an invaluable animal model for studying human diseases[3,4]. With the increasing prevalence of obesity and fatty liver disease globally[5,6], elucidating the mechanisms underlying porcine fat deposition has both agricultural and biomedical significance.

      N6-methyladenosine (m6A) is the most abundant internal modification in eukaryotic mRNAs and long non-coding RNAs, playing a dynamic role in post-transcriptional regulation[7,8]. This reversible modification occurs at the nitrogen-6 position of adenosine, predominantly within the consensus RRACH motif (where R represents A or G, and H represents A, C, or U), with a preference for the GAC context[9,10]. Methyltransferase 'writers', such as METTL3 and METTL14 catalyzed m6A site deposition[11,12], m6A is removed by demethylase 'erasers' such as FTO and ALKBH5[13,14], and interpreted by m6A 'readers' including YTHDF1/2/3, YTHDC1/2, and IGF2BP1/2/3[1520]. Together, these regulators orchestrate the functional landscape of the epitranscriptome.

      The m6A modification plays an important role in regulating multiple pivotal processes of RNA metabolism, including mRNA translation efficiency[15], mRNA stability[16], alternative splicing[21], nuclear export[22], and secondary structure remodeling[23,24]. In adipogenesis, m6A modification modulates the stability of genes associated with autophagy and glycolysis, thereby influencing adipocyte development[25,26]. Among m6A-related enzymes, FTO plays a critical role by promoting early adipocyte differentiation through demethylation of JAK2 mRNA, which stabilizes the transcript and activates the JAK2–STAT3–C/EBPβ pathway[27]. Conversely, FTO suppresses thermogenesis and the white-to-beige transition by reducing the m6A level of Hif1a mRNA, and inhibiting its translation[28]. In pigs, METTL3 was shown to inhibit adipogenic differentiation by methylating PHKG1 and enhancing its stability[29]. Although several m6A-modified targets have been identified in adipocyte differentiation, the transcriptome-wide role of m6A regulators in porcine adipogenesis remains incompletely understood.

      Here, transcriptome-wide m6A methylation dynamics were systematically profiled during porcine adipocyte differentiation. The present results uncovered that genes involved in adipogenic differentiation and lipid metabolism undergo coordinated changes in both expression and m6A modification. A strong positive correlation was observed in hypo-methylated and downregulated genes, highlighting a central role for m6A erasers in regulating gene expression in white adipose tissue (WAT). Moreover, enrichment of cancer-related pathways among these genes suggests potential crosstalk between lipid metabolism and oncogenic signaling. Collectively, these findings demonstrate the pivotal function of m6A erasers in porcine adipocyte differentiation, and identify potential m6A-regulated targets relevant to both metabolic regulation and disease.

    • For cell culture, adipose tissue samples were obtained from 2-week-old piglets, minced, and subsequently digested for 60 min at 37 °C. The digestion was carried out using 2 mg/mL collagenase type I (Sigma) in DMEM/F12 medium supplemented with 1% fatty acid-free bovine serum albumin (BSA, Sigma). Stromal vascular fraction (SVF) cells were filtered through a 70-µm cell strainer and cultured in DMEM/F12 (Gibco) medium containing 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS, Sigma), and 1% penicillin–streptomycin[30].

      For white adipocyte differentiation, SVF cells were first grown to confluence. Following confluence, the cells were induced for 5 d with human WAT induction medium. This medium consisted of DMEM/H supplemented with 0.1 µM dexamethasone, 66 nM insulin (Sigma), 0.25 mM isobutylmethylxanthine, 17 µM pantothenate, 20 mM HEPES (pH 7.4), 0.5% FBS, and 33 µM biotin. On day 5, half of the induction medium was replaced with human WAT maturation medium. This medium consisted of DMEM/H supplemented with 0.1 µM dexamethasone, 66 nM insulin (Sigma), 0.25 mM isobutylmethylxanthine, 17 µM pantothenate, 20 mM HEPES (pH 7.4), 10% FBS, and 33 µM biotin. After one day, cells were transferred to complete maturation medium and cultured for an additional 2 d. Fully differentiated adipocytes (day 8) were collected for subsequent experiments.

    • Total RNA was extracted using TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer's protocol[30]. First-strand cDNA synthesis was performed with the First-Strand cDNA Synthesis Mix with DNase (Genesand, SR511). Quantitative PCR was performed using SYBR Green Fast Mix (Genesand, SQ410). Relative expression levels were normalized to 18S rRNA as the internal reference. The sequences for RT-qPCR primers can be found in Supplementary Table S1.

    • MeRIP-seq and MeRIP-qPCR were performed as previously described[16] with some modifications. Briefly, total RNA was isolated with TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen) following the manufacturer's instructions. Poly(A)+ RNA was purified using the Dynabeads™ mRNA Purification Kit (Thermo Fisher, 61006), and fragmented into ~200 nt fragments with the RNA Fragmentation Reagent (Thermo Fisher, AM8740). Approximately 100 ng of fragmented RNA was reserved as an input control. For immunoprecipitation, 1 µg of fragmented poly(A)+ RNA was incubated with 2 µg of anti-m6A antibody (Synaptic Systems, 202003) at 4 °C for 3 h, followed by capture with Dynabeads™ Protein A (Thermo Fisher, 10002D) for 2 h at 4 °C. Beads were washed three times with IPP buffer (150 mM NaCl, 0.1% NP-40, 10 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.4). m6A-enriched RNA was competitively eluted using free m6A nucleotides, precipitated with ethanol, and further purified with the RNeasy MinElute Cleanup Kit (Qiagen, 74204). Libraries were prepared using the KAPA Stranded RNA-Seq Kit (KAPA Biosystems, KK8401) and sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq 6000 platform (ANOROAD, Beijing, China).

      To assess the methylation level of specific transcripts in SVF and WAT cells, MeRIP-qPCR was performed. The m6A-IP procedure was identical to that used for MeRIP-seq. Enriched RNA was eluted with DEPC-treated water, reverse-transcribed using the First-Strand cDNA Synthesis Mix with DNase (Genesand, SR511), and quantified by qPCR. The fraction recovered was calculated relative to the input. A complete list of the MeRIP-qPCR primers used is provided in Supplementary Table S1.

    • The raw input RNA-seq and MeRIP-seq data were processed using fastp software (v0.22.0)[31] to remove adaptor contamination and low-quality bases. Fastp outputs were summarized using MultiQC (v1.13.dev0)[32]. Clean reads were mapped to the reference genome of the Sus scrofa (version Sscrofa11.1)[33] using HISAT2 (v2.2.1)[34], with the parameters '-k 5 --max-intronlen 317,503 --summary-file'. The unique mapping clean reads were quantified using featureCounts from the subread software (v2.0.1)[35], following analysis of differentially expressed genes was conducted using the R package DESeq2 (v1.38.3)[36]. Genes were considered differentially expressed if they had an absolute log2foldchange value > 1, and a false discovery rate (FDR) value < 0.05 in the input RNA-seq data. For Principal component analysis, gene expression patterns were calculated on the regularized normalized counts obtained from DESeq2, and visualization using plotPCA. Sample correlation analysis was performed using deeptools software (v3.5.1)[37], Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) functional enrichment analyses were carried out using Bioconductor clusterProfiler (v4.6.2) package[38]. Significantly enriched GO terms (FDR < 0.05) were selected, and visualization analysis using the R package ggplot2 (v3.5.1). Heatmap visualization was performed using the pheatmap (v1.0.12) package in R (v4.2.3) to represent the differentially expressed genes.

      For m6A peak calling, the MASC2 peak calling algorithm (https://github.com/macs3-project/MACS/wiki/Install-macs2) were used to identified m6A peaks with the input RNA-seq data as background, and the parameter q value was set to 0.05. For each biological replicate, m6A peaks that overlapped at least two of three biological replicates were merged as high confidence m6A peaks using the slice function (parameter set to lower = 2, ranges Only = TRUE) in the R package IRanges (https://bioconductor.org/packages/IRanges). The GuitarPlot function was used to analyze each conditional high confidence m6A peaks distribution in the R package Guitar (https://github.com/lzcyzm/Guitar). m6A peaks annotation analysis was performed using R package ChIPseeker (v1.34.1)[39]. QNB software (v1.1.11)[40] was used to identify the differential methylational sites. m6A peaks were considered differential methylated peaks if they had an absolute log2foldchange value > 0.58, and an adjusted p-value < 0.05.

    • To identify significant enriched motifs, de novo analysis was conducted on the high-confidence m6A peaks using HOMER software (v4.11)[41], in brief, the sequences of high confidence m6A peaks were extracted as target sequences using the fastaFromBed function in BEDTools software (v2.26.0)[42], with background sequences generated using the shuffle function. De novo motif analysis was subsequently executed through HOMER's findMotifs.pl script.

    • GSEA was performed to identify biologically relevant pathways exhibiting coordinated expression changes in input RNA-seq data. In brief, KEGG pathway enrichment was analyzed using GSEA implemented with the gseKEGG function in clusterProfiler. Genes were ranked by log2foldchange values from differential expression analysis. The analysis utilized the KEGG database (v2.4.5)[43] with organism code 'ssc'. Significant pathways were identified at the absolute normalized enrichment score (NES) > 1.5, and FDR value < 0.05. Results were visualized using the gseaplot2 function in the R package enrichplot (https://github.com/YuLab-SMU/enrichplot) with GSEA enrichment score profiles.

    • To investigate the role of m6A modification during the Sus scrofa adipocyte differentiation, the mRNA expression patterns of m6A regulator genes were examined, including m6A writers, erasers, and readers during the transition from SVF cells to WAT. Distinct temporal expression profiles were observed (Fig. 1).

      Figure 1. 

      Expression dynamics of m6A writers, erasers, and readers during porcine adipocyte differentiation. Relative mRNA expression levels of m6A (a) writers, (b) erasers, and (c) readers during SVF adipogenesis. 18S rRNA was used as the internal reference gene. Data are presented as mean ± s.d (n = 3). Statistical significance was determined by ANOVA with a post-hoc test. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001; ns, not significant (p ≥ 0.05).

      Most m6A writers' expression level gradually increased during the first 6 d of differentiation but declined sharply in mature WAT (day 8), except for WTAP, which peaked on day 2 (Fig. 1a). In contrast, the m6A erasers ALKBH5 and FTO maintained high expression levels in mature adipocytes (day 8) (Fig. 1b). Notably, FTO expression remained elevated from day 2 onward, corresponding with its pivotal role in adipogenesis and adipogenic differentiation[44]. These findings imply that m6A writers may function primarily during the early phase of adipogenesis, whereas m6A erasers were active throughout the entire differentiation process.

      Corresponding to the elevated expression of m6A writers on day 2, m6A readers also showed high expression on day 2 but displayed divergent trajectories in subsequent stages (Fig. 1c). Among them, YTHDC1 and YTHDC2 exhibited a wave-like expression pattern throughout adipogenesis. On the other hand, YTHDF1 expression level significantly decreased after day 2, whereas YTHDC2 and YTHDF3 maintained high expression levels from day 2 to day 8. Together, these regulators cooperate to modulate m6A methylation of target genes during adipogenesis.

    • Transcriptional changes were next characterized by RNA sequencing of SVF cells (pre-differentiation) and WAT cells (post-differentiation), each with three biological replicates (Supplementary Table S2). Pearson correlation analysis, sample-to-sample distance metrics, and principal component analysis (PCA) confirmed high reproducibility (Supplementary Fig. S1).

      Differential expression analysis (absolute fold change > 2, FDR < 0.05) identified 3,739 upregulated and 3,560 downregulated genes (Fig. 2a). Among these, lncRNAs accounted for 18.69% of upregulated, and 6.97% of downregulated transcripts (Fig. 2b), suggesting regulatory roles in adipogenesis.

      Figure 2. 

      Transcriptomic reprogramming during porcine adipocyte differentiation. (a) Volcano plot of differentially expressed genes (thresholds: |fold change| > 2, FDR < 0.05). (b) Classification of differentially expressed genes into protein-coding genes, lncRNAs, and other RNA types (including snRNA, snoRNA, miRNA, etc.). (c) GO enrichment analysis of biological processes. Enriched pathways above the dashed line correspond to up-regulated genes, while those below represent down-regulated genes. Terms were considered significantly enriched with an FDR < 0.05. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) of key metabolic pathways. Pathways showing significant enrichment include the (d) PPAR signaling pathway, (e) regulation of lipolysis in adipocytes, and (f) fatty acid metabolism. Normalized enrichment scores (NES) and FDR are indicated for each pathway.

      GO and KEGG enrichment revealed that upregulated genes were strongly enriched in lipid metabolism, lipogenesis, and fatty acid synthesis, supporting their roles in adipogenesis and lipid accumulation. Conversely, downregulated genes were enriched in stimulus response and regulatory pathways, indicating reduced stress-related activity in mature adipocytes (Fig. 2c).

      KEGG further highlighted enrichment of PPAR signaling among upregulated genes (Supplementary Fig. S2)[45], along with fatty acid metabolism and regulation of lipolysis. In contrast, downregulated genes were enriched in PI3K-Akt and MAPK signaling (Supplementary Fig. S2). GSEA confirmed consistent upregulation of PPAR signaling, fatty acid metabolism, and lipolysis-related gene sets in WAT (Fig. 2df). Together, these data show that WAT is characterized by enhanced lipid metabolism and reduced stress and signaling activity during differentiation.

    • To profile global m6A changes, MeRIP-seq was performed. Using MACS2 peak calling and requiring overlap in at least two replicates, 18,743 peaks in SVF and 17,790 peaks in WAT were identified (Supplementary Fig. S3a, S3b). m6A peaks were unevenly distributed across chromosomes (Fig. 3a).

      Figure 3. 

      Transcriptome-wide distribution and features of m6A in porcine adipocytes. (a) Distribution of m6A peaks and gene density across 20 chromosomes in SVF and WAT. (b) Metagene profile of m6A peak distribution across normalized mRNA transcripts, divided into three regions: 5′UTR, coding sequence (CDS), and 3′UTR. Exons are shown as thick boxes and introns as thin lines. (c) Genomic annotation of m6A peaks in SVF and WAT. (d) Consensus sequence motifs of m6A peaks identified by HOMER; red letters indicate the methylated adenine. (e) Abundance of m6A peaks per transcript. The bar chart shows the proportion of transcripts containing different numbers of m6A peaks. (f) Boxplot comparison of expression levels of m6A-modified versus non-m6A-modified transcripts in SVF and WAT. Statistical significance was determined using Student's t-test.

      At the transcript level, m6A peaks were predominantly enriched in 3′UTRs and CDS regions in both stages, consistent with previous reports (Fig. 3b, c)[46,47]. HOMER motif analysis identified enrichment of GGACH (H = A/C/U) and DGAC (D = A/G/U) motifs, confirming successful enrichment of m6A-modified sequences (Fig. 3d)[29,46,48].

      Mapping peaks to transcripts revealed 7,597 and 7,521 m6A-modified genes in SVF and WAT, respectively, with more than half containing a single m6A site (Fig. 3e). Approximately 200 lncRNAs carried m6A peaks (Supplementary Fig. S3c). Importantly, transcripts with m6A sites showed significantly higher expression levels than non-m6A-modified transcripts, and those with multiple sites were expressed at higher levels than those with a single site (Fig. 3f), consistent with the role of multiple m6A modifications in stabilizing mRNAs via IGF2BP proteins[20]. Collectively, these results highlight positional enrichment of m6A in CDS and 3′UTRs and its positive association with transcript expression.

    • To assess changes in m6A methylation during porcine adipocyte differentiation, differentially methylated peaks (DMPs) between SVF and WAT (absolute fold change > 1.5, p < 0.05) were analyzed. This analysis identified 515 hyper-methylated peaks and 2,112 hypo-methylated peaks (Fig. 4a), corresponding to 230 and 1,304 genes, respectively (Fig. 4b). The predominance of hypo-methylated genes in WAT is consistent with the elevated expression of the m6A erasers FTO and ALKBH5 (Fig. 1). More than 88% of the differentially methylated genes were protein-coding, with a minority being lncRNAs (Fig. 4b). Peak annotation further revealed that hyper-methylated sites were mainly enriched in 5′UTRs, whereas hypo-methylated sites were concentrated in CDS and 3′UTR regions (Fig. 4c).

      Figure 4. 

      Differential m6A methylation during porcine adipocyte differentiation. (a) Volcano plot showing differentially methylated m6A peaks between SVF and WAT. Hypermethylated peaks (red) and hypomethylated peaks (blue) represent significant changes, while non-significant peaks are shown in gray. Dashed lines indicate thresholds for fold change and p-value. (b) Bar plot showing the numbers and types of genes annotated from differentially methylated peaks. (c) Metagene profile of differential m6A peak distribution across normalized mRNA transcripts. (d) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of differentially methylated genes presented as a bubble plot. (e) Heatmap of expression levels of MAPK signaling pathway genes in SVF and WAT.

      KEGG functional enrichment analysis revealed differentially methylated genes were enriched in pathways including cancer, MAPK signaling, endocytosis, cAMP signaling, Hippo signaling, oxytocin signaling, and apelin signaling (Fig. 4d, e; Supplementary Fig. S4). Notably, MAPK signaling—critical in adipogenesis and lipid metabolism[49,50]—was among the most enriched categories. These results demonstrate that m6A demethylation predominates in WAT and involves pathways central to adipocyte differentiation.

    • To further explore the functional impact of m6A during porcine adipocyte differentiation, transcript abundance and m6A methylation levels were cross-analyzed. Integration of methylation and expression data identified 71 hyper-up, 517 hypo-down, 43 hyper-down, and 122 hypo-up genes (Fig. 5a, Supplementary Table S3). Among 1,304 hypo-methylated genes, 39.6% were downregulated, and only 9.35% were upregulated, suggesting that demethylation destabilizes transcripts in WAT.

      Figure 5. 

      m6A demethylation correlates with transcriptome reprogramming during adipocyte differentiation. (a) Venn diagram showing the overlap between differentially methylated genes and differentially expressed genes. (b) Scatter plot illustrating the correlation between fold changes in m6A modification levels and gene expression levels in hypo-down genes. Correlation was assessed using Pearson's method. (c) KEGG pathway enrichment analysis of hypo-down genes displayed as a bubble plot. (d) Heatmap of expression levels of cancer signaling pathway genes in SVF and WAT.(e) Expression levels, and (f) m6A modification levels of selected hypo-down genes. β-actin was used as the internal reference gene. Error bars represent mean ± s.d. (n = 3). Statistical significance was determined using Student's t-test relative to day 0. p < 0.05; * p < 0.01; ** p < 0.001; *** p < 0.0001; ns, not significant (p ≥ 0.05).

      Correlation analysis revealed a significant positive association between expression and methylation changes, specifically in hypo-down genes (n = 517). In contrast, no significant correlation was observed in the hypo-up (n = 122), hyper-up (n = 71), and hyper-down (n = 43) categories (Fig. 5b, Supplementary Fig. S5aS5c). The association between reduced expression and demethylation in hypo-down genes, together with elevated FTO and ALKBH5 expression, underscores the role of m6A erasers in repressing gene expression during terminal adipocyte differentiation. GO enrichment of hypo-down genes revealed enrichment in regulators of metabolic processes and DNA transcription (Supplementary Fig. S5d).

      KEGG pathway analysis further showed that many hypo-down genes were enriched in cancer-related pathways. Within this cluster, genes such as ABL proto-oncogene 1 (ABL1), mesenchymal to epithelial transition factor (MET), promyelocytic leukemia nuclear body scaffold (PML), and breast cancer susceptibility gene 2 (BRCA2)—established oncogenes or therapeutic targets—were downregulated and hypo-methylated in WAT (Fig. 5c, d, Supplementary Table S3). MeRIP-qPCR and RT-qPCR validation confirmed consistent trends between expression and m6A modification levels, supporting the reliability of our sequencing data (Fig. 5e, f).

      Further analysis identified several lipogenesis-related genes with altered methylation patterns. Genes such as forkhead box O3 (FOXO3), peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor delta (PPARD), fatty acid binding protein 4 (FABP4), retinol binding protein 5 (RBP5), and solute carrier family 7 member 2 (SLC7A2) were classified as hypo-up category. Two lipid metabolism genes, acetyl-CoA carboxylase alpha (ACACA), and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARG), which showed no change in m6A modification in MeRIP-seq, were used as controls. Validation by MeRIP-qPCR and RT-qPCR confirmed that FOXO3, FABP4, PPARD, and RBP5 showed reduced m6A modification, consistent with MeRIP-seq data, whereas SLC7A2 did not (Fig. 6a, b). Although some lipogenesis-related genes displayed hypo-methylation, most upregulated lipid metabolic genes did not exhibit significant changes in m6A modification. Thus, while m6A may contribute to the regulation of specific lipogenic genes, it is unlikely to be the dominant driver of their increased expression during adipocyte differentiation.

      Figure 6. 

      (a) Expression levels and (b) m6A modification levels of hypo-up genes. β-actin was used as the internal reference gene. Error bars represent mean ± s.d. (n = 3). Statistical significance was assessed using Student's t-test relative to day 0. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; **** p < 0.0001; ns, p ≥ 0.05.

      Together, these findings indicate that m6A demethylation by erasers represses regulators of metabolism and transcription in WAT, selectively affects lipogenic genes, and links adipocyte differentiation to oncogenic pathways.

    • Adipocyte differentiation and lipid metabolism are coordinated by complex transcriptional and post-transcriptional networks. The nuclear receptor peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ), together with CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein alpha (C/EBPα) and other transcription factors, orchestrates the adipogenic transcriptional program required for terminal differentiation[45,51,52]. While numerous transcriptional regulators of adipogenesis have been identified[53], post-transcriptional regulation by m6A has recently emerged as a key layer of control. In this study, we observed stage-specific dynamics of m6A regulators: Mettl14 expression increased during adipocyte differentiation, consistent with its essential role in maintaining adipocyte viability and metabolic homeostasis[54], whereas the demethylases FTO and ALKBH5 remained highly expressed throughout differentiation, in line with their established functions in adipogenesis and lipid metabolism[55,56]. Transcriptome-wide analysis revealed that WAT is characterized by extensive m6A hypo-methylation, correlating with reduced expression of genes involved in metabolic regulation and transcription. These findings highlight m6A demethylation as a central mechanism shaping the transcriptome during porcine adipocyte differentiation, and provide mechanistic insight into adipose biology and metabolic regulation. Beyond adipogenesis, it was found that hypo-methylated and downregulated genes were significantly enriched in cancer-related pathways. Adipocytes are major stromal components that actively contribute to the tumor microenvironment by supplying energy substrates, regulating metabolism, and releasing adipokines. Cancer-associated adipocytes (CAAs) engage in reciprocal crosstalk with tumor cells, fueling growth and metastasis through free fatty acid release, fatty acid oxidation, and adipokine signaling[5759]. The present results suggest that m6A-dependent regulation of adipogenesis may influence the abundance and activity of adipocytes in the tumor microenvironment, thereby affecting cancer progression.

      To further validate the positive correlation between m6A demethylation and reduced expression of genes involved in the adipogenesis regulatory pathway and cancer-related pathway, the expression levels of these potential target genes should be quantified in FTO- or ALKBH5-knockdown cells. Moreover, assessing the adipogenic differentiation capacity of FTO- or ALKBH5-knockdown cells could further elucidate the critical regulatory role of m6A demethylation in adipogenic differentiation. In addition, overexpressing m6A methyltransferases (e.g., METTL14 or METTL16) in cells to restore the m6A levels of hypomethylated lipid metabolism-associated genes-followed by evaluating the expression of adipogenesis/metabolism-related genes and the status of adipogenic differentiation under this condition, would provide additional evidence to support the notion that m6A demethylation drives adipogenesis and metabolic reprogramming.

      With the advancement of m6A editing tools, precise m6A RNA editing systems have been developed by fusing catalytically dead Cas (dCas) proteins with m6A methyltransferases (e.g., METTL3 and METTL14) or m6A demethylases (e.g., ALKBH5 and FTO)[60,61], enabling the functional characterization of individual genes. Guided by a single-guide RNA (sgRNA) targeting the gene of interest, the m6A RNA editing system can precisely recognize the target gene and mediate site-specific m6A methylation or demethylation, either in the nucleus or cytoplasm, depending on the type of fused catalytic protein. Furthermore, emerging integrated m6A editing technologies, such as adenosine-to-inosine (A-to-I) editing and dCasRx-based editing, empower researchers to dissect the functional roles of individual m6A modifications[62,63]. The present study identified a certain number of genes that exhibit significant m6A modification changes during adipogenesis and may be involved in regulating porcine adipogenesis and cancer-related pathways. These genes could serve as ideal targets for m6A RNA editing systems, providing a means to modulate porcine adipogenic differentiation or cancer cell differentiation. Targeted m6A editing of key regulators may therefore represent a promising approach for precision livestock breeding and therapeutic strategies targeting lipid metabolism in cancer.

    • m6A modification, a central mechanism of RNA epigenetic regulation in eukaryotes, plays a pivotal role in regulating physiological processes including growth, development, and metabolic homeostasis. Currently, research on m6A modification has been widely applied in the analysis of pathological mechanisms and the exploration of potential intervention targets for major human diseases, including obesity, diabetes, neurological disorders, and malignant tumors. In contrast, studies on the functional roles of m6A modification in livestock species remain limited. Using porcine adipocytes as a model, the present study systematically characterized the dynamic m6A modification landscape and reveal key candidate targets within the m6A-mediated regulatory network governing porcine fat deposition, filling the knowledge gap about m6A role in porcine adipogenesis, and implicates m6A in the functional interplay between adipose tissue and cancer, which could be used in developing m6A-based precision editing tools for trait improvement in agricultural animals and supports the advancement of epigenetic breeding strategies in animal agriculture.

      • This work was supported by Biological Breeding-National Science and Technology Major Project (2024ZD04077), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC U25A20678 and 32325042), Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation (6262020) and the Initiative Scientific Research Program, the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (2023IOZ0203 and 2024IOZ0106).

      • All procedures were reviewed and approved in advance by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Beijing, China) (Approval ID: IOZ-IACUC-2021-080, Approval date: 2021.08.03). The study adhered to the principles of Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement to minimize animal suffering. Detailed information on animal housing, care, and pain management is provided to ensure that the welfare of the animals was maintained throughout the experiment.

      • The authors confirm their contributions to the paper as follows: study conception and design: Zhang X, Zhao J; methodology: Xie L, Huang J, Liu T, Liu Y; investigation: Huang J, Liu T, Liu Y; formal analysis: Xie L, Chen J; draft manuscript preparation: Xie L, Huang J, Liu T, Liu Y; writing − review and editing: Zhang X, Zhao J, Wang Q, Wang M, Chen J; funding acquisition: Zhang X, Huang J; supervision: Zhang X, Zhao J, Wang Q, Wang M, Chen J. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

      • All data generated or analyzed in this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files. Raw datasets are available from the corresponding authors upon reasonable request.

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • # Authors contributed equally: Liqiang Xie, Juan Huang, Tianxia Liu, Yang Liu

      • Copyright: © 2026 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (6)  References (63)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Xie L, Huang J, Liu T, Liu Y, Wang Q, et al. 2026. m6A-mediated epitranscriptomic remodeling coordinates lipid metabolism and transcriptional networks during porcine adipocyte differentiation. Epigenetics Insights 19: e002 doi: 10.48130/epi-0025-0016
    Xie L, Huang J, Liu T, Liu Y, Wang Q, et al. 2026. m6A-mediated epitranscriptomic remodeling coordinates lipid metabolism and transcriptional networks during porcine adipocyte differentiation. Epigenetics Insights 19: e002 doi: 10.48130/epi-0025-0016

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return