ArticleEnvironmental epigenetics2025
A cost-effective method for combining the power of genetic and epigenetic selection in animal production.
Article in Environmental epigenetics, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional breeding programs have largely focused on genetics, often overlooking environmental and epigenetic influences on phenotypic variability. Current methods for developing epigenetic biomarkers (EBs) with machine learning (ML) algorithms require extensive data, making them costly and time-intensive. In this study, using a fish as a model, we analysed ~500 000 CpG loci in samples from 60 different families to develop EBs for broodstock selection. To address limited sample sizes at the sequencing stage, we combined careful sample selection, statistical filtering, and various feature selection and ML algorithms. As a result, we identified three heritable CpGs sites in sire sperm associated with three key performance indicators in their offspring: biomass, fast-growing females, and resistance to the masculinizing effects of high temperature. Then, we were able to build a model successfully predicting the best sire broodstock based on DNA methylation levels of these EBs. This model was validated across three independent trials, including one involving an external cohort of fish with differentiated genetic background, thereby confirming its robustness beyond the training population. Yield was increased up to 1.4-fold when including epigenetic selection into the genetic selection program as compared with genetic selection alone. In summary, we present a cost-effective strategy for integrating epigenetic and genetic selection in the context of animal production. Furthermore, this method also can be applied to assess the impact of environmental factors into the broodstock and on samples where obtaining information can be challenging, such as in the study of the epigenetic basis of rare diseases, and the application of epigenetic markers in conservation biology.
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.