Simulation of dual-purpose chicken breeding programs implementing gene editing.
Journal
Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE
ISSN: 1297-9686
Titre abrégé: Genet Sel Evol
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9114088
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Jan 2024
17 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
28
04
2023
accepted:
29
12
2023
medline:
18
1
2024
pubmed:
18
1
2024
entrez:
17
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In spite of being controversial and raising ethical concerns, the application of gene editing is more likely to be accepted when it contributes to improving animal welfare. One of the animal welfare and ethical issues in chicken breeding is chick culling, the killing of the male layer chicks after hatching due to the poor fattening performance. Although establishing dual-purpose chicken lines could solve this problem, unfavorable genetic correlations between egg and meat production traits hindered their competitiveness. Although it is also controversial in ethical terms, gene editing may accelerate genetic progress in dual-purpose chicken and alleviate the ethical concerns from chick culling. The simulation compared the utility improvement in dual-purpose use under two breeding schemes: one consisting in the improvement of the laying hens, and the second in the improvement of a synthetic line obtained from a layer broiler cross. In each breeding scheme, the breeding programs were simulated with and without gene editing. Polygenic breeding values and 500 simulated quantitative trait loci (QTL) with different levels of pleiotropy caused negative correlations between egg production, meat production, and overall health. The results of the simulation demonstrated that genetic gain could be accelerated by at most 81% for several generations if gene editing was used. The actual increase in genetic gain depended on the number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) being edited per animal. The rate of genetic improvement became equal in scenarios with and without gene editing after 20 generations. This is because the remaining segregating QTL had small effects and their edition would have negative overall health effects from potential off-target edits. Although gene editing can improve genetic gain in quantitative traits, it can only be recommended as long as QTL with reasonable effect sizes are segregating and detectable. This simulation demonstrates the potential of gene editing to accelerate the simultaneous improvement of negatively correlated traits. When the risk of negative consequences from gene editing persists, the number of SNPs to be edited should be chosen carefully to obtain the optimal genetic gain.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In spite of being controversial and raising ethical concerns, the application of gene editing is more likely to be accepted when it contributes to improving animal welfare. One of the animal welfare and ethical issues in chicken breeding is chick culling, the killing of the male layer chicks after hatching due to the poor fattening performance. Although establishing dual-purpose chicken lines could solve this problem, unfavorable genetic correlations between egg and meat production traits hindered their competitiveness. Although it is also controversial in ethical terms, gene editing may accelerate genetic progress in dual-purpose chicken and alleviate the ethical concerns from chick culling.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The simulation compared the utility improvement in dual-purpose use under two breeding schemes: one consisting in the improvement of the laying hens, and the second in the improvement of a synthetic line obtained from a layer broiler cross. In each breeding scheme, the breeding programs were simulated with and without gene editing. Polygenic breeding values and 500 simulated quantitative trait loci (QTL) with different levels of pleiotropy caused negative correlations between egg production, meat production, and overall health. The results of the simulation demonstrated that genetic gain could be accelerated by at most 81% for several generations if gene editing was used. The actual increase in genetic gain depended on the number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) being edited per animal. The rate of genetic improvement became equal in scenarios with and without gene editing after 20 generations. This is because the remaining segregating QTL had small effects and their edition would have negative overall health effects from potential off-target edits. Although gene editing can improve genetic gain in quantitative traits, it can only be recommended as long as QTL with reasonable effect sizes are segregating and detectable.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This simulation demonstrates the potential of gene editing to accelerate the simultaneous improvement of negatively correlated traits. When the risk of negative consequences from gene editing persists, the number of SNPs to be edited should be chosen carefully to obtain the optimal genetic gain.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38233762
doi: 10.1186/s12711-023-00874-3
pii: 10.1186/s12711-023-00874-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7Subventions
Organisme : Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (GEroNIMO)
ID : N°101000236
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Tan W, Proudfoot C, Lillico SG, Whitelaw CBA. Gene targeting, genome editing: from Dolly to editors. Transgenic Res. 2016;25:273–87.
doi: 10.1007/s11248-016-9932-x
pubmed: 26847670
pmcid: 4882362
van Eenennaam AL, de Figueiredo Silva F, Trott JF, Zilberman D. Genetic engineering of livestock: the opportunity cost of regulatory delay. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2021;9:453–78.
doi: 10.1146/annurev-animal-061220-023052
pubmed: 33186503
Mueller ML, Cole JB, Sonstegard TS, van Eenennaam AL. Simulation of introgression of the POLLED allele into the Jersey breed via conventional breeding vs. gene editing. Transl Anim Sci. 2018;2:S57-60.
doi: 10.1093/tas/txy054
pubmed: 32704737
pmcid: 7200810
Carlson DF, Lancto CA, Zang B, Kim E-S, Walton M, Oldeschulte D, et al. Production of hornless dairy cattle from genome-edited cell lines. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34:479–81.
doi: 10.1038/nbt.3560
pubmed: 27153274
Whitworth KM, Rowland RRR, Ewen CL, Trible BR, Kerrigan MA, Cino-Ozuna AG, et al. Gene-edited pigs are protected from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34:20–2.
doi: 10.1038/nbt.3434
pubmed: 26641533
Burkard C, Lillico SG, Reid E, Jackson B, Mileham AJ, Ait-Ali T, et al. Precision engineering for PRRSV resistance in pigs: macrophages from genome edited pigs lacking CD163 SRCR5 domain are fully resistant to both PRRSV genotypes while maintaining biological function. PLoS Pathog. 2017;13: e1006206.
doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1006206
pubmed: 28231264
pmcid: 5322883
Jenko J, Gorjanc G, Cleveland MA, Varshney RK, Whitelaw CBA, Woolliams JA, et al. Potential of promotion of alleles by genome editing to improve quantitative traits in livestock breeding programs. Genet Sel Evol. 2015;47:55.
doi: 10.1186/s12711-015-0135-3
pubmed: 26133579
pmcid: 4487592
Simianer H, Pook T, Schlather M. Turning the PAGE—the potential of genome editing in breeding for complex traits revisited. In: Proceedings of the 11th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production; 11–6 February 2018; Aukland. 2018.
Hickey J, Bruce C, Whitelaw A, Gorjanc G. Promotion of alleles by genome editing in livestock breeding programmes. J Anim Breed Genet. 2016;133:83–4.
doi: 10.1111/jbg.12206
pubmed: 26995217
Aerts S, de Tavernier J. Killing animals as a matter of collateral damage. In: Meijboom FL, Stassen EN, editors. The end of animal life: a start for ethical debate. Ethical and societal considerations on killing animals. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2016. p. 167–86.
doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-808-7_11
Reithmayer C, Mußhoff O, Danne M. Alternatives to culling male chicks—the consumer perspective. Br Food J. 2020;122:753–65.
doi: 10.1108/BFJ-05-2019-0356
Human and agriculture gene editing: Regulations and index.2020. https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/ . Accessed 20 Mar 2023.
Middelveld S, Macnaghten P. Gene editing of livestock: Sociotechnical imaginaries of scientists and breeding companies in the Netherlands. Elem Sci Anth. 2021;9:00073.
doi: 10.1525/elementa.2020.00073
de Graeff N, Jongsma KR, Johnston J, Hartley S, Bredenoord AL. The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2019;374:20180106.
doi: 10.1098/rstb.2018.0106
pubmed: 30905297
pmcid: 6452271
Mueller S, Kreuzer M, Siegrist M, Mannale K, Messikommer RE, Gangnat IDM. Carcass and meat quality of dual-purpose chickens (Lohmann Dual, Belgian Malines, Schweizerhuhn) in comparison to broiler and layer chicken types. Poult Sci. 2018;97:3325–36.
doi: 10.3382/ps/pey172
pubmed: 29788213
Tarsani E, Kranis A, Maniatis G, Hager-Theodorides AL, Kominakis A. Detection of loci exhibiting pleiotropic effects on body weight and egg number in female broilers. Sci Rep. 2021;11:7441.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-86817-8
pubmed: 33811218
pmcid: 8018976
Ndung’u CW, Muasya TK, Okeno TO. Optimization of response to selection using genomic selection in indigenous chicken breeding programmes. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2021;51:723–34.
doi: 10.4314/sajas.v51i6.5
Falconer DS, Mackay TFC. Introduction to quantitative genetics. 4th ed. Harlow: Pearson, Prentice Hall; 1996.
Wellmann R. Optimum contribution selection for animal breeding and conservation: the R package optiSel. BMC Bioinformatics. 2019;20:25.
doi: 10.1186/s12859-018-2450-5
pubmed: 30642239
pmcid: 6332575
Wang Y, Segelke D, Emmerling R, Bennewitz J, Wellmann R. Long-term impact of optimum contribution selection strategies on local livestock breeds with historical introgression using the example of German Angler cattle. G3 (Bethesda). 2017;7:4009–18.
doi: 10.1534/g3.117.300272
pubmed: 29089375
pmcid: 5714497
Oishi I, Yoshii K, Miyahara D, Kagami H, Tagami T. Targeted mutagenesis in chicken using CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci Rep. 2016;6:23980.
doi: 10.1038/srep23980
pubmed: 27050479
pmcid: 4822141
Iyer V, Shen B, Zhang W, Hodgkins A, Keane T, Huang X, et al. Off-target mutations are rare in Cas9-modified mice. Nat Methods. 2015;12:479.
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3408
pubmed: 26020497
Damme K. Economics of dual-purpose breeds. Lohmann Breeders. 2015 https://lohmann-breeders.com/lohmanninfo/economics-of-dual-purpose-breeds/ . Accessed 2022–11–25
Chebib J, Guillaume F. Pleiotropy or linkage? Their relative contributions to the genetic correlation of quantitative traits and detection by multitrait GWA studies. Genetics. 2021;219:iyab159.
doi: 10.1093/genetics/iyab159
pubmed: 34849850
pmcid: 8664587
Lyzenga WJ, Pozniak CJ, Kagale S. Advanced domestication: harnessing the precision of gene editing in crop breeding. Plant Biotechnol J. 2021;19:660–70.
doi: 10.1111/pbi.13576
pubmed: 33657682
pmcid: 8051614
Ballantyne M, Woodcock M, Doddamani D, Hu T, Taylor L, Hawken RJ, et al. Direct allele introgression into pure chicken breeds using sire dam surrogate (SDS) mating. Nat Commun. 2021;12:659.
doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-20812-x
pubmed: 33510156
pmcid: 7844028
Kim Y, Kim S, Arora N. GMO labeling policy and consumer choice. J Mark. 2022;86:21–39.
doi: 10.1177/00222429211064901
Rosebboro K. Study: consumers will pay more for non-GMO foods, less for GMO. The Organic & Non-GMO Report. 2012. https://non-gmoreport.com/articles/june2012/studyconsumerswillpaymorenongmofoods.php/ . Accessed 2 Aug 2022.
Martin-Collado D, Byrne TJ, Crowley JJ, Kirk T, Ripoll G, Whitelaw CBA. Gene-edited meat: disentangling consumers’ attitudes and potential purchase behavior. Front Nutr. 2022;9: 856491.
doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.856491
pubmed: 35449542
pmcid: 9017286
Greenfield A. Editing mammalian genomes: ethical considerations. Mamm Genome. 2017;28:388–93.
doi: 10.1007/s00335-017-9702-y
pubmed: 28653171
Ishii T. Genome-edited livestock: ethics and social acceptance. Anim Front. 2017;7:24–32.
doi: 10.2527/af.2017.0115
Schicktanz S. Ethical considerations of the human–animal-relationship under conditions of asymmetry and ambivalence. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2006;19:7–16.
doi: 10.1007/s10806-005-4374-0
Kramer K, Meijboom FLB. The ethics of innovations in genomic selection: on how to broaden the scope of discussion. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2022;35:7.
doi: 10.1007/s10806-022-09883-6