Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26419343›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2015

Genetic parameters and signatures of selection in two divergent laying hen lines selected for feather pecking behaviour.

Vanessa Grams, Robin Wellmann, Siegfried Preuß, Michael A Grashorn, Jörgen B Kjaer, Werner Bessei, Jörn Bennewitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Vanessa GramsInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany. vanessa.grams@uni-hohenheim.de.
Robin WellmannInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany. r.wellmann@uni-hohenheim.de.
Siegfried PreußInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany. siegfried.preuss@uni-hohenheim.de.
Michael A GrashornInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany. michael.grashorn@uni-hohenheim.de.
Jörgen B KjaerInstitute for Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Doernbergstrasse 25-27, 29223, Celle, Germany. joergen.kjaer@fli.bund.de.
Werner BesseiInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany. werner.bessei@uni-hohenheim.de.
Jörn BennewitzInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, 70593, Stuttgart, Germany. j.bennewitz@uni-hohenheim.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFeather pecking (FP) in laying hens is a well-known and multi-factorial behaviour with a genetic background. In a selection experiment, two lines were developed for 11 generations for high (HFP) and low (LFP) feather pecking, respectively. Starting with the second generation of selection, there was a constant difference in mean number of FP bouts between both lines. We used the data from this experiment to perform a quantitative genetic analysis and to map selection signatures.

methodsPedigree and phenotypic data were available for the last six generations of both lines. Univariate quantitative genetic analyses were conducted using mixed linear and generalized mixed linear models assuming a Poisson distribution. Selection signatures were mapped using 33,228 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) genotyped on 41 HFP and 34 LFP individuals of generation 11. For each SNP, we estimated Wright's fixation index (FST). We tested the null hypothesis that FST is driven purely by genetic drift against the alternative hypothesis that it is driven by genetic drift and selection.

resultsThe mixed linear model failed to analyze the LFP data because of the large number of 0s in the observation vector. The Poisson model fitted the data well and revealed a small but continuous genetic trend in both lines. Most of the 17 genome-wide significant SNPs were located on chromosomes 3 and 4. Thirteen clusters with at least two significant SNPs within an interval of 3 Mb maximum were identified. Two clusters were mapped on chromosomes 3, 4, 8 and 19. Of the 17 genome-wide significant SNPs, 12 were located within the identified clusters. This indicates a non-random distribution of significant SNPs and points to the presence of selection sweeps.

conclusionsData on FP should be analysed using generalised linear mixed models assuming a Poisson distribution, especially if the number of FP bouts is small and the distribution is heavily peaked at 0. The FST-based approach was suitable to map selection signatures that need to be confirmed by linkage or association mapping.

Indexed as

Selection, GeneticAnalysis of VarianceAnimalsBehavior, AnimalChickensChromosome MappingGenetic DriftPedigreePoisson DistributionPolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID26419343
PMCPMC4589119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.