ArticleJournal of animal science2023
Strategies for accommodating gene-edited sires and their descendants in genetic evaluations.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Gene editing has the potential to expedite the rate of genetic gain for complex traits. However, changing nucleotides (i.e., QTN) in the genome can affect the additive genetic relationship among individuals and, consequently, impact genetic evaluations. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to estimate the impact of including gene-edited individuals in the genetic evaluation and investigate modeling strategies to mitigate potential errors. For that, a beef cattle population was simulated for nine generations (N = 13,100). Gene-edited sires (1, 25, or 50) were introduced in generation 8. The number of edited QTN was 1, 3, or 13. Genetic evaluations were performed using pedigree, genomic data, or a combination of both. Relationships were weighted based on the effect of the edited QTN. Comparisons were made using the accuracy, average absolute bias, and dispersion of the estimated breeding values (EBV). In general, the EBV of the first generation of progeny of gene-edited sires were associated with greater average absolute bias and overdispersion than the EBV of the progeny of non-gene-edited sires (P ≤ 0.001). Weighting the relationship matrices increased (P ≤ 0.001) the accuracy of EBV when the gene-edited sires were introduced by 3% and decreased (P ≤ 0.001) the average absolute bias and dispersion for the progeny of gene-edited sires. For the second generation of descendants of gene-edited sires, the absolute bias increased as the number of edited alleles increased; however, the rate of increase in absolute bias was 0.007 for each allele edited when the relationship matrices were weighted compared with 0.10 when the relationship matrices were not weighted. Overall, when gene-edited sires are included in genetic evaluations, error is introduced in the EBV, such that the EBV of progeny of gene-edited sires are underestimated. Hence, the progeny of gene-edited sires would be less likely to be selected to be parents of the next generation than what was expected based on their true genetic merit. Therefore, modeling strategies such as weighting the relationship matrices are essential to avoid incorrect selection decisions if animals that have been edited for QTN underlying complex traits are introduced into genetic evaluations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.