Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34750534›Full record

ArticleHeredity2021

Long-term impact of conventional and optimal contribution conservation methods on genetic diversity and genetic gain in local pig breeds.

Qingbo Zhao, Huiming Liu, Qamar Raza Qadri, Qishan Wang, Yuchun Pan, Guosheng Su

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heredity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Progress in Genomic Mating in Domestic Animals.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
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

6 authors.

Qingbo Zhao *School of Agriculture and Biology, Department of Animal Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, PR China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5423-1029
Huiming Liu *Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, Tjele, 8830, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0761-326X
Qamar Raza QadriSchool of Agriculture and Biology, Department of Animal Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200240, PR China.
Qishan WangDepartment of Animal Breeding and Reproduction, College of Animal Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310030, PR China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6475-0009
Yuchun PanDepartment of Animal Breeding and Reproduction, College of Animal Science, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310030, PR China. panyuchun1963@aliyun.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1163-5963
Guosheng SuCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Faculty of Science and Technology, Aarhus University, Tjele, 8830, Denmark. guosheng.su@qgg.au.dk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are rich and vast genetic resources of indigenous pig breeds in the world. Currently, great attention is paid to either crossbreeding or conservation of these indigenous pig breeds, and insufficient attention is paid to the combination of conservation and breeding along with their long-term effects on genetic diversity. Therefore, the objective of this study is to compare the long-term effects of using conventional conservation and optimal contribution selection methods on genetic diversity and genetic gain. A total of 11 different methods including conventional conservation and optimal contribution selection methods were investigated using stochastic simulations. The long-term effects of using these methods were evaluated in terms of genetic diversity metrices such as expected heterozygosity (He) and the rate of genetic gain. The results indicated that the rates of true inbreeding in these conventional conservation methods were maintained at around 0.01. The optimal contribution selection methods based either on the pedigree (POCS) or genome (GOCS) information showed more genetic gain than conventional methods, and POCS achieved the largest genetic gain. Furthermore, the effect of using GOCS methods on most of the genetic diversity metrics was slightly better than the conventional conservation methods when the rate of true inbreeding was the same, but this also required more sires used in OCS methods. According to the rate of true inbreeding, there was no significant difference among these conventional methods. In conclusion, there is no significant difference in different ways of selecting sows on inbreeding when we use different conventional conservation methods. Compared with conventional methods, POCS method could achieve the most genetic gain. However, GOCS methods can not only achieve higher genetic gain, but also maintain a relatively high level of genetic diversity. Therefore, GOCS is a better choice if we want to combine conservation and breeding in actual production in the conservation farms.

Indexed as

GenomeInbreedingAnimalsFemaleGenetic VariationHeterozygotePedigreeSwine

Identifiers

PMID34750534
PMCPMC8626428

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.