Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32300217›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2020

Harnessing genomics to fast-track genetic improvement in aquaculture.

Ross D Houston, Tim P Bean, Daniel J Macqueen, Manu Kumar Gundappa, Ye Hwa Jin, Tom L Jenkins, Sarah Louise C Selly, Samuel A M Martin, Jamie R Stevens, Eduarda M Santos and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 185 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
185citing 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

185 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Bony fish genomes: Status and gaps.Journal of fish biology · 2026
    Review
  8. Chromosome-scale genome of European anchovy (Engraulis encrasicolus L., 1758) and comparative genomics uncover clupeid-specific immune gene expansions.DNA research : an international journal for rapid publication of reports on genes and genomes · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The pangenome ofiScience · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

125 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors.

Ross D HoustonThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, UK. ross.houston@roslin.ed.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1805-0762
Tim P BeanThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, UK.
Daniel J MacqueenThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, UK.
Manu Kumar GundappaThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, UK.
Ye Hwa JinThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, UK.
Tom L JenkinsSustainable Aquaculture Futures, Biosciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Sarah Louise C SellyInstitute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Samuel A M MartinSchool of Biological Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Jamie R StevensSustainable Aquaculture Futures, Biosciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Eduarda M SantosSustainable Aquaculture Futures, Biosciences, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4074-0121
Andrew DavieInstitute of Aquaculture, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Diego RobledoThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush Campus, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S004181/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S004300/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S004343/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S004416/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20002172Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20002174Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20241866
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aquaculture is the fastest-growing farmed food sector and will soon become the primary source of fish and shellfish for human diets. In contrast to crop and livestock production, aquaculture production is derived from numerous, exceptionally diverse species that are typically in the early stages of domestication. Genetic improvement of production traits via well-designed, managed breeding programmes has great potential to help meet the rising seafood demand driven by human population growth. Supported by continuous advances in sequencing and bioinformatics, genomics is increasingly being applied across the broad range of aquaculture species and at all stages of the domestication process to optimize selective breeding. In the future, combining genomic selection with biotechnological innovations, such as genome editing and surrogate broodstock technologies, may further expedite genetic improvement in aquaculture.

Indexed as

AquacultureBreedingGenomicsAdaptation, BiologicalAnimalsAnimals, DomesticAnimals, WildBiodiversityDomesticationEnvironmentEpigenesis, GeneticGene EditingGene-Environment InteractionGenetic Predisposition to DiseaseGenomeSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.