Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31921286›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2019

First Evidence of Realized Selection Response on Fillet Yield in Rainbow Trout

Marc Vandeputte, Jérôme Bugeon, Anastasia Bestin, Alexandre Desgranges, Jean-Michel Allamellou, Anne-Sophie Tyran, François Allal, Mathilde Dupont-Nivet, Pierrick Haffray

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. In Vivo Ultrasound Prediction of the Fillet Volume in Senegalese Sole (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  5. Genomic Selection in Aquaculture Species.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Marc VandeputteGABI, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Jérôme BugeonLPGP, INRA, Rennes, France.
Anastasia BestinSYSAAF, LPGP-INRA, Rennes, France.
Alexandre DesgrangesLes Aquaculteurs Bretons, Plouigneau, France.
Jean-Michel AllamellouLABOGENA-DNA, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Anne-Sophie TyranSYSAAF, LPGP-INRA, Rennes, France.
François AllalMARBEC, Université de Montpellier, Ifremer, CNRS, IRD, Palavas-les-Flots, France.
Mathilde Dupont-NivetGABI, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Pierrick HaffraySYSAAF, LPGP-INRA, Rennes, France.
Syndicat des Sélectionneurs Avicoles et Aquacoles Français · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRAgroParisTech · FRFish Physiology and Genomics Institute · FRLaboratoire d'Analyses Génétiques pour les Espèces Animales · FRStress Environnementaux et Biosurveillance des Milieux Aquatiques · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fillet yield, the proportion of edible fillet relative to body weight, is a major trait to improve in fish sold processed, as it has a direct impact on profitability and can simultaneously decrease the environmental impact of producing a given amount of fillet. However, it is difficult to improve by selective breeding, because it cannot be measured on live breeding candidates, its phenotypic variation is low, and, as a ratio, it is not normally distributed and a same change in fillet yield can be the result of different changes in fillet weight and body weight. Residual headless gutted carcass weight (rHGCW) is heritable and highly genetically correlated to Fillet% in rainbow trout, and can be predicted by the ratio of abdominal wall thickness to depth of the peritoneal cavity (E8/E23), measured on live fish by ultrasound tomography. We selected broodstock based on rHGCW, measured on sibs of the selection candidates, on ultrasound measurements (E8/E23) measured on the selection candidates, or a combination of both. Seven broodstock groups were selected: fish with 15% highest (rHGCW+) or lowest (rHGCW-) EBV for rHGCW, with 15% highest (E8/E23+) or lowest (E8/E23-) EBV for E8/E23, with both rHGCW+ and E8/E23+ (Both+) or rHGCW- and E8/E23- (Both-), or with close to zero EBVs for both traits (Mid). Seven corresponding groups of offspring were produced and reared communally. At harvest size (1.5 kg mean weight), 1,561 trout were slaughtered, measured for the traits of interest, and pedigreed with DNA fingerprinting. Offspring from groups Both+, rHGCW+ and E8/E23+ had a higher EBV for rHGCW than the control group, while down-selected groups had a lower EBV. Looking at the phenotypic mean for Fillet% (correlated response), up-selected fish had more fillet than down-selected fish. The highest difference was between Both+ (69.36%) and Both- (68.20%), a 1.16% units difference in fillet percentage. The change in Fillet% was explained by an opposite change in Viscera%, while Head% remained stable. Selection using sib information on rHGCW was on average more efficient than selection using the candidates' own E8/E23 phenotypes, and downward selection (decreasing Fillet%) was more efficient than upward selection.

Indexed as

aquaculturefillet yieldheritabilityproduction efficiencyselection responseselective breeding

Identifiers

PMID31921286
PMCPMC6933014
OpenAlexW2995610623

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.