Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38233762›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2024

Simulation of dual-purpose chicken breeding programs implementing gene editing.

Edward Y S Chuang, Robin Wellmann, Franck L B Meijboom, Jens Tetens, Jörn Bennewitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Efficiency of Recurrent Genomic Selection in Panmictic Populations.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    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

5 authors.

Edward Y S ChuangInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstr. 17, 70599, Stuttgart, Germany. chuang@uni-hohenheim.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5966-2103
Robin WellmannInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstr. 17, 70599, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4748-8042
Franck L B MeijboomFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Centre for Sustainable Animal Stewardship, Utrecht University, Yalelaan 2, 3584 CJ, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0752-016X
Jens TetensDepartment of Animal Sciences, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Burckhardtweg 2, 37077, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5352-464X
Jörn BennewitzInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Garbenstr. 17, 70599, Stuttgart, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6450-1160

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (GEroNIMO) N°101000236
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn spite of being controversial and raising ethical concerns, the application of gene editing is more likely to be accepted when it contributes to improving animal welfare. One of the animal welfare and ethical issues in chicken breeding is chick culling, the killing of the male layer chicks after hatching due to the poor fattening performance. Although establishing dual-purpose chicken lines could solve this problem, unfavorable genetic correlations between egg and meat production traits hindered their competitiveness. Although it is also controversial in ethical terms, gene editing may accelerate genetic progress in dual-purpose chicken and alleviate the ethical concerns from chick culling.

resultsThe simulation compared the utility improvement in dual-purpose use under two breeding schemes: one consisting in the improvement of the laying hens, and the second in the improvement of a synthetic line obtained from a layer broiler cross. In each breeding scheme, the breeding programs were simulated with and without gene editing. Polygenic breeding values and 500 simulated quantitative trait loci (QTL) with different levels of pleiotropy caused negative correlations between egg production, meat production, and overall health. The results of the simulation demonstrated that genetic gain could be accelerated by at most 81% for several generations if gene editing was used. The actual increase in genetic gain depended on the number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) being edited per animal. The rate of genetic improvement became equal in scenarios with and without gene editing after 20 generations. This is because the remaining segregating QTL had small effects and their edition would have negative overall health effects from potential off-target edits. Although gene editing can improve genetic gain in quantitative traits, it can only be recommended as long as QTL with reasonable effect sizes are segregating and detectable.

conclusionsThis simulation demonstrates the potential of gene editing to accelerate the simultaneous improvement of negatively correlated traits. When the risk of negative consequences from gene editing persists, the number of SNPs to be edited should be chosen carefully to obtain the optimal genetic gain.

Indexed as

ChickensGene EditingAnimalsFemaleMaleMeatPhenotypeQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID38233762
PMCPMC10795215

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.