Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42166210›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of heredity2026

Evolving conservation: The role of unconventional approaches to restore contemporary vertebrate populations and genomic biodiversity.

Bridgett M vonHoldt, Matt James, Stephen J Gaughran, Alexandra L DeCandia, Klaus-Peter Koepfli, Dan Flores, Nucharin Songsasen, Kristin E Brzeski, Evelyn L Jensen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of heredity, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Bridgett M vonHoldtDepartment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6908-1687
Matt JamesColossal Biosciences, Austin, TX, United States.ORCID 0009-0003-1300-5759
Stephen J GaughranDepartment of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9413-5074
Alexandra L DeCandiaDepartment of Biology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8485-5556
Klaus-Peter KoepfliColossal Biosciences, Austin, TX, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7281-0676
Dan FloresDepartment of History, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, United States.
Nucharin SongsasenCenter for Species Survival, Smithsonian's National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, Front Royal, VA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2800-1163
Kristin E BrzeskiCollege of Forest Resources and Environmental Science, Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5104-3719
Evelyn L JensenSchool of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1819-3117

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conservation biology and restoration ecology are two essential yet distinct disciplines that address the growing challenge of biodiversity loss. Traditionally, these fields have relied on ecological principles and management practices aimed at protecting or reestablishing natural systems. The crisis is no longer just ecological; it is evolutionary and genomic. The accelerating pace of environmental change has outstripped the capacity of conventional approaches, creating a pressing need for innovative solutions. Biotechnology offers potentially transformative tools that can enhance the effectiveness and precision of both conservation and restoration efforts, especially for species where conventional conservation approaches have proved insufficient. Techniques such as genetic rescue, synthetic biology, and gene editing are increasingly being explored to address critical challenges, such as invasive species control, genetic diversity loss, and habitat fragmentation, to both invigorate endangered species and restore historical biodiversity. Despite its promise, the integration of biotechnology into conservation and restoration has raised ethical, ecological, and regulatory concerns. These include ecological unpredictability and public resistance to genetic interventions in wild populations. This perspective examines the current landscape of biotechnological applications in conservation and restoration, highlighting successful case studies, ongoing controversies, and optimism for additional progress. We argue that thoughtful, transparent integration of biotechnology that is grounded in ecological knowledge and stakeholder engagement can reconcile the goals of conservation and restoration. As ecosystems face mounting pressures, biotech-enabled strategies may prove essential for fostering resilience and ensuring long-term ecological sustainability.

Indexed as

BiodiversityConservation of Natural ResourcesVertebratesAnimalsBiotechnologyEcosystemEndangered SpeciesGenetic VariationGenomicsback-breedingconservation genomicsde-introgressionendangered speciesextinct genomic variationreviving

Identifiers

PMID42166210
PMCPMC13539457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.