Table 1. Comparison between CNVRs detected in the study with those in the previous reports.

Study	CNVR detected in the previous studies							Overlaps with this study
	Methods	Sample	CNVR	Range (Kb)	Median (Kb)	Mean (Kb)	Total (Mb)	Count	Count Percentage	Total length (Kb)	Length Percentage
Fadista et al., 2008 (19)	aCGH (385 k)	12	37	1.74–61.92	6.89	9.32	0.43	1	0.07	7.37	0.02
Ramayo-Caldas et al., 2010 (15)	SNP chip (60 k)	55	49	44.65–10715.82	170.96	754.59	36.97	4	0.30	174.74	0.37
Wang et al., 2012 (16)	SNP chip (60 k)	474	382	5.03–2702.75	142.90	250.69	95.76	13	0.97	442.31	0.93
Li et al., 2012 (20)	aCGH (720 k)	12	259	2.30–1550	98.74	65.07	16.85	63	4.69	2260.22	4.73
Chen et al., 2012 (18)	SNP chip (60 k)	1693	565	50.39–8102.06	252.71	247.55	139.87	147	10.94	10365.15	21.69
Wang et al., 2013 (17)	SNP chip (60 k)	14	63	3.20 –827.21	97.85	158.37	9.98	13	0.97	1218.39	2.55
Rubin et al., 2012 (21)	Genome sequencing	117	1,928	0.12–175.50	3.00	5.23	10.08	172	12.80	4422.54	9.25
Paudel et al., 2013 (22)	Genome sequencing	16	3,118	6.00–96.00	10.00	12.74	39.72	104	18.67	5656.82	31.74
This study	aCGH (1 M)	12	1,344	3.37–1319.01	11.11	35.56	47.79	—	—	—	—

Note: The comparison was based on Sscrofa 10.2 assembly (http://www.ensembl.org/Sus_scrofa/Info/Index). For CNVRs based on the other porcine assembly, we firstly converted the data to current genome coordinates using the UCSC LiftOver tool (http://genome.ucsc.edu/cgi-bin/hgLiftOver); CN loss counts were removed from our list while making comparison with Paudel et al., 2013 (22) as the study only reported copy number gain events.