Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29661133›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2018

The impact of genome editing on the introduction of monogenic traits in livestock.

John W M Bastiaansen, Henk Bovenhuis, Martien A M Groenen, Hendrik-Jan Megens, Han A Mulder

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 48% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John W M BastiaansenWageningen University & Research Animal Breeding and Genomics, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. john.bastiaansen@wur.nl.
Henk BovenhuisWageningen University & Research Animal Breeding and Genomics, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Martien A M GroenenWageningen University & Research Animal Breeding and Genomics, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Hendrik-Jan MegensWageningen University & Research Animal Breeding and Genomics, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Han A MulderWageningen University & Research Animal Breeding and Genomics, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Wageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs TKI-Agri & Food
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenome editing technologies provide new tools for genetic improvement and have the potential to become the next game changer in animal and plant breeding. The aim of this study was to investigate how genome editing in combination with genomic selection can accelerate the introduction of a monogenic trait in a livestock population as compared to genomic selection alone.

methodsA breeding population was simulated under genomic selection for a polygenic trait. After reaching Bulmer equilibrium, the selection objective was to increase the allele frequency of a monogenic trait, with or without genome editing, in addition to improving the polygenic trait. Scenarios were compared for time to fixation of the desired allele, selection response for the polygenic trait, and level of inbreeding. The costs, in terms of number of editing procedures, were compared to the benefits of having more animals with the desired phenotype of the monogenic trait. Effects of reduced editing efficiency were investigated.

resultsIn a population of 20,000 selection candidates per generation, the total number of edited zygotes needed to reach fixation of the desired allele was 22,118, 7072, or 3912 with, no, moderate, or high selection emphasis on the monogenic trait, respectively. Genome editing resulted in up to four-fold faster fixation of the desired allele when efficiency was 100%, while the loss in long-term selection response for the polygenic trait was up to seven-fold less compared to genomic selection alone. With moderate selection emphasis on the monogenic trait, introduction of genome editing led to a four-fold reduction in the total number of animals showing the undesired phenotype before fixation. However, with a currently realistic editing efficiency of 4%, the number of required editing procedures increased by 72% and loss in selection response increased eight-fold compared to 100% efficiency. With low efficiency, loss in selection response was 29% more compared to genomic selection alone.

conclusionsGenome editing strongly decreased the time to fixation for a desired allele compared to genomic selection alone. Reduced editing efficiency had a major impact on the number of editing procedures and on the loss in selection response. In addition to ethical and welfare considerations of genome editing, a careful assessment of its technical costs and benefits is required.

Indexed as

Quantitative Trait LociSelection, GeneticAnimalsBreedingCattleFemaleGene EditingGene FrequencyInbreedingLivestockMale

Identifiers

PMID29661133
PMCPMC5902981
OpenAlexW2791142758

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.