Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34130700›Full record

ArticleBMC biology2021

Large-scale genomic analysis reveals the genetic cost of chicken domestication.

Ming-Shan Wang, Jin-Jin Zhang, Xing Guo, Ming Li, Rachel Meyer, Hidayat Ashari, Zhu-Qing Zheng, Sheng Wang, Min-Sheng Peng, Yu Jiang and 33 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Ultrarapid MC1R protein and associated plumage color evolution in the domestic chicken.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

43 authors.

Ming-Shan Wang *State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4663-2735
Jin-Jin Zhang *State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Xing Guo *College of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei, 230036, China.
Ming Li *Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction of Shaanxi Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100, China.
Rachel Meyer *Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA.
Hidayat Ashari *Museum Zoologicum Bogoriense, Research Center for Biology, Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI), Cibinong, Bogor, 16911, Indonesia.
Zhu-Qing ZhengKey Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, The Cooperative Innovation Center for Sustainable Pig Production, Ministry of Education, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070, China.
Sheng WangState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Min-Sheng PengState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Yu JiangKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction of Shaanxi Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100, China.
Mukesh ThakurState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Chatmongkon SuwannapoomSchool of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of Phayao, Phayao, 56000, Thailand.
Ali EsmailizadehState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Nalini Yasoda HirimuthugodaState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Moch Syamsul Arifin ZeinMuseum Zoologicum Bogoriense, Research Center for Biology, Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI), Cibinong, Bogor, 16911, Indonesia.
Szilvia KuszaInstitute of Animal Husbandry, Biotechnology and Nature Conservation, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, H-4032, Hungary.
Hamed Kharrati-KoopaeeDepartment of Animal Science, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, P.O. Box 76169133, Kerman, Iran.
Lin ZengState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Yun-Mei WangCenter for Neurobiology and Brain Restoration, Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology, Moscow, 143026, Russia.
Ting-Ting YinState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Min-Min YangState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Ming-Li LiState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Xue-Mei LuState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Emiliano LasagnaDipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentarie Ambientali, University of Perugia, 06123, Perugia, Italy.
Simone CeccobelliDipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentarie Ambientali, University of Perugia, 06123, Perugia, Italy.
Humpita Gamaralalage Thilini Nisanka GunwardanaFaculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka.
Thilina Madusanka SenasigFaculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka.
Shao-Hong FengState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Hao ZhangLaboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Ministry of Agriculture of China, Beijing, 100193, China.
Abul Kashem Fazlul Haque BhuiyanBangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 2202, Bangladesh.
Muhammad Sajjad KhanCholistan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
Gamamada Liyanage Lalanie Pradeepa SilvaDepartment of Animal Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, 20400, Sri Lanka.
Le Thi ThuyNational Institute of Animal Husbandry, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Okeyo A MwaiLivestock Genetics Program, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, 00100, Kenya.
Mohamed Nawaz Mohamed IbrahimLivestock Genetics Program, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, 00100, Kenya.
Guojie ZhangState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China.
Kai-Xing QuYunnan Academy of Grassland and Animal Science, Kunming, 650212, China.
Olivier HanotteCells, Organisms and Molecular Genetics, School of Life Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK.
Beth ShapiroHoward Hughes Medical Institute, University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, 95064, USA.
Mirte BosseWageningen University & Research - Animal Breeding and Genomics, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands. mirte.bosse@wur.nl.
Dong-Dong WuState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China. wudongdong@mail.kiz.ac.cn.
Jian-Lin HanCAAS-ILRI Joint Laboratory on Livestock and Forage Genetic Resources, Institute of Animal Science, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Beijing, 100193, China. h.jianlin@cgiar.org.
Ya-Ping ZhangState Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution, Yunnan Laboratory of Molecular Biology of Domestic Animals, Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming, 650223, China. zhangyp@mail.kiz.ac.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 31771415
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpecies domestication is generally characterized by the exploitation of high-impact mutations through processes that involve complex shifting demographics of domesticated species. These include not only inbreeding and artificial selection that may lead to the emergence of evolutionary bottlenecks, but also post-divergence gene flow and introgression. Although domestication potentially affects the occurrence of both desired and undesired mutations, the way wild relatives of domesticated species evolve and how expensive the genetic cost underlying domestication is remain poorly understood. Here, we investigated the demographic history and genetic load of chicken domestication.

resultsWe analyzed a dataset comprising over 800 whole genomes from both indigenous chickens and wild jungle fowls. We show that despite having a higher genetic diversity than their wild counterparts (average π, 0.00326 vs. 0.00316), the red jungle fowls, the present-day domestic chickens experienced a dramatic population size decline during their early domestication. Our analyses suggest that the concomitant bottleneck induced 2.95% more deleterious mutations across chicken genomes compared with red jungle fowls, supporting the "cost of domestication" hypothesis. Particularly, we find that 62.4% of deleterious SNPs in domestic chickens are maintained in heterozygous states and masked as recessive alleles, challenging the power of modern breeding programs to effectively eliminate these genetic loads. Finally, we suggest that positive selection decreases the incidence but increases the frequency of deleterious SNPs in domestic chicken genomes.

conclusionThis study reveals a new landscape of demographic history and genomic changes associated with chicken domestication and provides insight into the evolutionary genomic profiles of domesticated animals managed under modern human selection.

Indexed as

ChickensDomesticationAnimalsAnimals, DomesticGenomeGenomicsHumansBottleneckDeleterious mutationDomesticationDomestic chickenGenetic load

Identifiers

PMID34130700
PMCPMC8207802

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.