Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42651850›Full record

ReviewCurrent issues in molecular biology2026

Resolving Cattle GWAS Loci: Current Progress, Persistent Challenges and Future Directions.

Aizhan Mussayeva, Lidiia Samarina

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current issues in molecular biology, 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

2 authors.

Aizhan MussayevaInstitute of Genetics and Physiology, Almaty 050000, Kazakhstan.ORCID 0000-0003-2871-1552
Lidiia SamarinaInstitute of Genetics and Physiology, Almaty 050000, Kazakhstan.ORCID 0000-0002-0500-1198

Funding

Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan BR24993004
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have mapped many regions affecting cattle production, health and fertility, yet the lead variant is usually a marker for a linkage-disequilibrium block rather than the molecular lesion. This state-of-the-field review examines how those loci are interpreted at different levels. The literature shows both progress and persistent limits. Colocalization may identify a likely effector transcript without establishing mediation, whereas structural variants missing from SNP-based analyses can account for expression, splicing, or complex-trait signals. Earlier reviews have audited proposed causative variants across cattle and pigs, surveyed causal variants across livestock species, or concentrated on structural variation. Here, these lines of evidence are brought together around a narrower question: Why do cattle complex-trait loci remain resolved at such different biological depths? Coding, regulatory, splicing, and structural examples show where inference is persuasive and where alternatives remain. The evidence is organized as a conceptual landscape, not a validated hierarchy or prescriptive pipeline. The available mechanistic evidence is nevertheless concentrated in commercial taurine, particularly dairy populations, which limits the direct transferability of locus-level conclusions to indicine, African taurine, composite and locally adapted cattle. Priorities include clearer causal terminology, multi-signal and multi-breed analyses, better representation of structural variation, tissue- and cell-state-matched molecular data, native bovine experimental systems and transparent reporting of unresolved explanations.

Indexed as

cattle genomicsfine-mappingGWASmolecular QTLpangenomeregulatory variationstructural variants

Identifiers

PMID42651850
PMCPMC13510783

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.