Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40197154›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2025

Analysis of different genotyping and selection strategies in laying hen breeding programs.

Lisa Büttgen, Henner Simianer, Torsten Pook

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Phenotypic Responses to Selection in Ross 308 Broiler Breeders: Long-Term Growth Assessed With Nonlinear Models Across Four Generations.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Efficiency of Recurrent Genomic Selection in Panmictic Populations.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  7. 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

3 authors.

Lisa BüttgenAnimal Breeding and Genetics Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Center for Integrated Breeding Research, University of Goettingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075, Goettingen, Germany. lisa.buettgen@uni-goettingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8090-9908
Henner SimianerAnimal Breeding and Genetics Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Center for Integrated Breeding Research, University of Goettingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075, Goettingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7551-3797
Torsten PookAnimal Breeding and Genetics Group, Department of Animal Sciences, Center for Integrated Breeding Research, University of Goettingen, Albrecht-Thaer-Weg 3, 37075, Goettingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7874-8500

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic selection has become an integral component of modern animal breeding programs, having the potential to improve the efficiency of layer breeding programs both by obtaining higher prediction accuracies and reducing the generation interval, particularly for males, who cannot be phenotyped for sex-limited traits such as laying performance. In the current study, we investigate different strategies to reduce the generation interval either for both sexes or only for the male side of the breeding scheme based on stochastic simulation using the software MoBPS. Additionally, prediction accuracies based on varying proportions of genotyping and phenotype- and pedigree-based selection as well as genomic breeding values are compared.

resultsSelection of hens based on estimated breeding values, either pedigree-based or genomic, increased genetic gain compared to selection based on phenotypes only. The use of two time-shifted subpopulations with exchange of males between subpopulations to reduce the generation interval on the male side led to significantly higher genetic gains. Reducing the generation interval for both males and females was only efficient when population sizes were maintained, which result in doubling of the number of females to genotype and phenotype within the same time frame compared to the scenarios with the longer generation intervals. Although substantially higher gains were obtained by in particular pedigree-based selection of females and a reduction of generation intervals this led to substantially greater rates of inbreeding per year. The use of a genomic relationship matrix in breeding value estimation instead of a pedigree-based relationship matrix not only increased genetic gains but also reduced inbreeding rates. The use of optimum contribution selection led to basically the same genetic gains as without it but reduced inbreeding rates. However, overall differences obtained with optimal contribution selection were small compared to differences caused by the other effects that were considered.

conclusionsThe reduction of the generation interval on the male side by the use of genomic estimated breeding values was highly beneficial. Reduction of the generation interval on the female side was only beneficial when a high proportion of hens was genotyped and housing capacities were increased. On the female side of a layer breeding program, selection based on pedigree-based estimated breeding values was inferior to phenotypic selection, as it resulted in a substantial increase in inbreeding rates.

Indexed as

BreedingChickensGenotyping TechniquesSelection, GeneticAnimalsFemaleGenotypeInbreedingMaleModels, GeneticPedigreePhenotype

Identifiers

PMID40197154
PMCPMC11974122

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.