ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2017
Interaction of direct and social genetic effects with feeding regime in growing rabbits.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Towards assessing indirect genetic effects in dairy cattle.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025Article
- Indirect genetic effects increase the heritable variation available to selection and are largest for behaviors: a meta-analysis.Evolution letters · 2025Article
- Effects of yeast culture (Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Genotype by heat conditions interaction effects on growth and litter traits in rabbits.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2022Article
- Genome-wide association study for feed efficiency in collective cage-raised rabbits under full and restricted feeding.Animal genetics · 2020Article
- Rederivation by Cryopreservation of a Paternal Line of Rabbits Suggests Exhaustion of Selection for Post-Weaning Daily Weight Gain after 37 Generations.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Dynamic distribution of gut microbiota in meat rabbits at different growth stages and relationship with average daily gain (ADG).BMC microbiology · 2020Article
- Indirect genetic effect model using feeding behaviour traits to define the degree of interaction between mates: an implementation in pigs growth rate.Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience · 2019Article
- Longitudinal analysis of direct and indirect effects on average daily gain in rabbits using a structured antedependence model.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2018Article
- Conditional indirect genetic effects of caregivers on brood in the clonal raider ant.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost rabbit production farms apply feed restriction at fattening because of its protective effect against digestive diseases that affect growing rabbits. However, it leads to competitive behaviour between cage mates, which is not observed when animals are fed ad libitum. Our aim was to estimate the contribution of direct ([Formula: see text]) and social ([Formula: see text]) genetic effects (also known as indirect genetic effects) to total heritable variance of average daily gain ([Formula: see text]) in rabbits on different feeding regimens (FR), and the magnitude of the interaction between genotype and FR (G × FR).
methodsA total of 6264 contemporary kits were housed in cages of eight individuals and raised on full ([Formula: see text]) or restricted ([Formula: see text]) feeding to 75% of the ad libitum intake. A Bayesian analysis of weekly records of [Formula: see text] (from 32 to 60 days of age) in rabbits on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] was performed with a two-trait model including [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text].
resultsThe ratio between total heritable variance and phenotypic variance ([Formula: see text]) was low (<0.10) and did not differ significantly between FR. However, the ratio between [Formula: see text] (i.e. variance of [Formula: see text] relative to phenotypic variance) and [Formula: see text] was ~0.52 and 0.86 for animals on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], respectively, thus [Formula: see text] contributed more to the heritable variance of animals on [Formula: see text] than on [Formula: see text]. Feeding regimen also affected the sign and magnitude of the correlation between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], i.e. -0.5 and ~0 for animals on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text], respectively. The posterior mean (posterior sd) of the correlation between estimated total breeding values (ETBV) of animals on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] was 0.26 (0.20), indicating very strong G × FR interactions. The correlations between [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] in rabbits on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] ranged from -0.47 ([Formula: see text] on [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] on [Formula: see text]) to 0.64.
conclusionsOur results suggest that selection of rabbits for [Formula: see text] under [Formula: see text] may completely fail to improve [Formula: see text] in rabbits on [Formula: see text]. Social genetic effects contribute substantially to ETBV of rabbits on [Formula: see text] but not on [Formula: see text]. Selection for [Formula: see text] should be performed under production conditions regarding the FR, by accounting for [Formula: see text] if the amount of food is limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.