Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39483033›Full record

ArticleAnimal bioscience2025

Comparing genomic studies in animal breeding and human genetics: focus on disease-related traits in livestock - A review.

Olivier Gervais, Yoshitaka Nagamine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal bioscience, 2025. 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. 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

2 authors.

Olivier GervaisCollege of International Relations, Nihon University, Mishima, Shizuoka 411-8555, Japan.
Yoshitaka NagamineCollege of Bioresource Sciences, Nihon University, Fujisawa, Kanagawa 252-0880, Japan.

Funding

Nihon University
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic studies of diseases can be divided into two types: i) analyses that reveal causal genes by focusing on linkage disequilibrium between observed and causal variants and ii) those that simultaneously assess numerous genetic markers to estimate the polygenic effects of a particular genomic region or entire genome. The field of human genetics has emphasized the discovery of causal genes, but these represent only a fraction of the total genetic variance. Therefore, alternative approaches, such as the polygenic risk score, which estimates the genetic risk for a given trait or disease based on all genetic markers (rather than on known causal variants only), have begun to garner attention. In many respects, these human genetic methods are similar to those originally developed for the estimation of breeding values (i.e., total additive genetic effects) in livestock. However, despite these similarities in methods, the fields of human and animal genetics still differ markedly in terms of research objectives, target populations, and other characteristics. For example, livestock populations have continually been selected and inbred throughout their history; consequently, their effective population size has shrunk and preferred genes (such as those influencing disease resistance and production traits) have accumulated in the modern breeding populations. By examining the characteristics of these two fields, particularly from the perspectives of disease and disease resistance, this review aims to improve understanding of the intrinsic differences between genomic studies using human compared with livestock populations.

Indexed as

Disease ResistanceGenome-wide Association Studies (GWAS)GenomicsLivestockMedical GeneticsPolygenic Models

Identifiers

PMID39483033
PMCPMC11725742

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.