Skip to main content
PMC home page
Evolutionary Applications logoLink to Evolutionary Applications
. 2022 Apr 18;15(4):517–522. doi: 10.1111/eva.13378

Genomics applied to livestock and aquaculture breeding

José M Yáñez 1,✉, Peng Xu 2, Roberto Carvalheiro 3,4, Ben Hayes 5
PMCID: PMC9046759  PMID: 35505887

Abstract

The increasing global demand for food, due to the continuous growth of human population, requires improvements in the efficiency and sustainability of animal production systems. In addition, several challenges facing farming of aquatic and terrestrial organisms need to be overcome to ensure food security in the upcoming decades, e.g. adaptation to climate change, reduced availability of conventional animal feed ingredients, emerging infectious and parasitic diseases, among others. Genomic technologies such as massive parallel sequencing, high‐throughput genotyping, genome selection and gene editing, combined with highly efficient computational methods can accelerate the rate of genetic progress in animal breeding. Thus, such technologies can help us meet the needs for protein sources for human consumption in the upcoming years. This Special Issue aims at presenting current advancements in the field of genomic tools applied to aquatic and terrestrial farmed animal populations.

Keywords: aquaculture, genomics, livestock, selective breeding

1. INTRODUCTION

The increasing global demand for food, due to the continuous growth of human population, requires improvements in the efficiency and sustainability of animal production systems. In addition, several challenges facing farming of aquatic and terrestrial organisms need to be overcome to ensure food security in the upcoming decades, e.g., adaptation to climate change, reduced availability of conventional animal feed ingredients, emerging infectious and parasitic diseases, among others. Genomic technologies such as massive parallel sequencing, high‐throughput genotyping, genome selection and gene editing, combined with highly efficient computational methods can accelerate the rate of genetic progress in animal breeding. Thus, such technologies can help us meet the needs for protein sources for human consumption in the upcoming years. This Special Issue aims at presenting current advancements in the field of genomic tools applied to aquatic and terrestrial farmed animal populations. From a general stand point, this Special Issue provides a better understanding on the utilization of genetic variability to improve aquaculture and livestock populations through the use of genomics. The contributions presented here demonstrate the utility of genomics in studying a variety of aspects of quantitative traits and selection applied to aquatic and terrestrial farmed species, including: (i) assessing genetic diversity of populations by using high‐resolution genomic information, (ii) identifying the genetic architecture of important quantitative traits, (iii) leveraging genome‐wide information for genetic evaluations, (iv) understanding genomic variation shaped by domestication and selection, (v) integration of different sources of information (e.g. non‐coding DNA sequences) to uncover mechanisms underlying complex traits, as well as, (vi) development and application of novel statistical methods for the analysis of genetic information.

2. ANIMAL GENETIC IMPROVEMENT

The application of genetic improvement has for decades been one of the most efficient tools to increase the biological performance and sustainability of animal production systems in the majority of terrestrial species (Goddard & Hayes, 2009). However, aquaculture species are, in general, behind terrestrial farm animal industries regarding selective breeding practices. For instance, it has been estimated that less than 10% of aquatic animal farming is based on genetically improved populations (Gjedrem, 2012). Nevertheless, response to selection documented for aquaculture species are in general considerably higher than that of livestock and there is growing interest to increase positive economic impact via selective breeding programs in aquatic farmed animals (Gjedrem et al., 2012). The status of selective breeding programs and technology level used in terrestrial species is very advanced and more or less similar among the most industrialized production species, including pigs (Sus scrofa domestica), chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) and cattle (Bos spp.; Georges et al., 2019). However, aquaculture production is based on a wide range of technological input and genetic development levels, from the use of non‐domesticated seed stocks from the wild through the implementation of breeding schemes leveraging genomic information (e.g., genomic selection; Houston et al., 2020; Yáñez et al., 2015).

3. GENOMIC TECHNOLOGIES

The development of genomic tools such as reference genome sequences, massive parallel re‐sequencing approaches and dense single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) genotyping panels have been crucial to both improve basic knowledge on the genomic control of complex traits and increase the rate of genetic progress in livestock and aquaculture species. In fact, genomic technologies are currently being routinely used in selective breeding to support livestock production, including species such as pigs, chicken and cattle (Georges et al., 2019), as well as in industrialized aquaculture species, including Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss; Lhorente et al., 2019) and tilapia (Oreochromis spp.; Yáñez et al., 2020). Thus, genomic advancements provide powerful tools for the scientific community and food industry to meet global demands of animal protein supplies for human consumption during the next years. The power of genomics is particularly important in livestock and aquaculture. The latter can be considered a young and rapidly expanding activity, with no more than 50 years of industrialized history, and an extremely unbalanced scientific and technological development in selective breeding practices across species.

4. DOMESTICATION AND ARTIFICIAL SELECTION

Domestication of terrestrial animals has been a long‐term ancient process. For the most important livestock species, domestication begun ~10,000 year ago, most likely starting as a commensal interaction between wild ancestors of current domestic animals and humans, followed by an increasingly intent to keep control of production, intensively breed and at last commercialize the use of animals by humans (Zeder, 2012). During this long‐term process, several domestic breeds have been established for different animal species across the world. Some breeds have been intensively selected for specific purposes resulting in highly divergent stocks within the same species. For instance, some chicken breeds are highly specialized for their use in intensive meat (broilers) or egg (layers) production. Similarly, some cattle breeds have been highly selected for either milk (dairy) or meat (beef) production. Genomic technologies can be used to investigate different demographic events that occurred across the domestication history of animal populations.

Cattle can be currently considered the economically most relevant domestic animal in the world. A comprehensive mitogenome assessment of the bovine species, including 114 breeds, suggests that the increase in the effective female population size of different bovine haplotypes overlaps with important environmental and anthropic events, such as climate changes at the end of ice age, the beginning of domestication, and migration of farmer tribes in Africa. Moreover, the study supports the presence of rare aurochs (Bos primigenius) female‐mediated adaptive introgression in domestic cattle during the dispersal of the species in Europe (Cubric‐Curik et al., 2021).

A comprehensive genome‐wide survey of worldwide chicken breeds provided deep insights into the admixture events which have shaped the genome of modern chicken populations during the domestication process, indicating that animals used for meat production in Asia, Europe and the US are highly represented by genetic contributions from heavy Asian breeds as well as confirming the molecular basis of plumage pigmentation (Guo et al., 2021). Another bird species which has been bred for different purposes, including ornamental, production, competition, and experimental uses, is the domestic pigeon (Columbia livia). By using whole‐genome sequences of animals from seven breeds it has been revealed that the genetic diversity and inbreeding levels of domestic pigeons are consistent with human‐driven selection, indicating that genomic regions under selection in commercial populations for production harbor genes associated to body size, reproduction, and feather color; while in ornamental populations genes are mostly related to skeletal‐muscle features, potentially affecting appearance traits (Hou et al., 2021). These studies provide further insights into the impact of domestication and artificial selection in shaping the genome of terrestrial domestic animals, which represent valuable knowledge for within‐species genetic diversity conservation and selective breeding.

History of domestication and artificial selection in aquaculture species is much more recent, and in some cases very incipient (López et al., 2015). Selection signatures, generated during the early domestication and recent selective breeding, have been assessed at a genome‐wide scale in important farmed fish species, including Atlantic salmon (Gutierrez et al., 2016; López, Benestan, et al., 2019; López, Linderoth, et al., 2019; Naval‐Sanchez et al., 2020), rainbow trout (Cádiz et al., 2021), coho salmon (López et al., 2021), Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus; Cádiz et al., 2020; Hong Xia et al., 2015), channel catfish (Sun et al., 2014), common carp (Cyprinus carpio; Xu et al., 2019), turbot (Scophthalmus maximus; Aramburu et al., 2020), Australasian snapper (Chrysophrys auratus; Baesjou & Wellenreuther, 2021), gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata; Gkagkavouzis et al., 2021) tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum; Agudelo et al., 2022), as well as in shellfish farmed populations, including bay scallop (Argopecten irradians; Wang et al., 2021), Yesso scallop (Mizuhopecten yessoensis; Lv et al., 2022), European flat oyster (Ostrea edulis; Vera et al., 2019) and Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas; Hu et al., 2021; Jiao et al., 2021). These studies have used dense genome‐wide genotypes to identify genomic regions harboring genes affecting important phenotypes in farmed fish and shellfish. In general, studies on genomic footprints of domestication and artificial selection in aquaculture species have identified loci, which are putatively associated to adaptation to different biotic and abiotic conditions imposed by farming and management practices, as well as traits improved by selective breeding. Genes enriched within the loci underlying selection aquaculture populations are generally associated with growth, immune response, behavior and reproduction, indicating that these processes are important during the adaptation to captivity and also favored by recent human‐driven selection.

5. MODERN SELECTIVE BREEDING

Over the past decade, genomic information has been introduced in selective breeding programs for the most important terrestrial livestock species, doubling the rate of genetic progress in some cases (Georges et al., 2019). Similarly, there has been a rapid commercial implementation of genomic approaches to both investigate the genetic basis and accelerate the genetic progress of economically important traits in major industrial aquaculture species including Atlantic salmon (Verbyla et al., 2021), coho salmon, rainbow trout (Lhorente et al., 2019), tilapia (Yáñez et al., 2020), and large yellow croaker (Larimichthys crocea) (Zhao et al., 2021). However, and although routine implementation of genomic selection is not yet common in most of the aquaculture species, recent scientific and technological efforts aiming at diversifying aquaculture are accompanied by advancements in genomics to assist genetic assessment of farmed stocks and selective breeding. For instance, a strong candidate species for diversifying cold‐water aquaculture is Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). A genomic characterization of the genetic diversity and evaluation of economically important traits has been recently performed in Nordic farmed populations of Arctic charr by using a genotyping‐by‐sequencing approach (Palaiokostas et al., 2021). A similar approach has been also used to investigate genetic diversity and genetic variation for growth‐related traits in a captive population of silver trevally (Pseudocaranx georgianus), which is considered a promising emerging for New Zealand aquaculture (Valenza‐Troubat et al., 2021). Similarly, the first application of genomic selection and genome‐wide association studies for growth traits in rock bream (Oplegnathus fasciatus), a valued species for marine aquaculture in Asia, has been recently reported (Gong et al., 2021). Incorporation of genomic information can also be a useful approach to assess the levels of inbreeding, their effect on economically important traits and even the genomic regions affecting changes in performance of breeding populations, as it has been recently demonstrated for female size and reproduction traits in rainbow trout (Paul et al., 2021).

To leverage the advantages offered by the incorporation of genomic information into breeding programs, generally genotyping several thousands of animals on each generation is required. The extra cost of generating genomic data can be not affordable for small‐scale livestock and aquaculture producers. Therefore, the cost of genotyping is considered a strong limitation for the routine implementation of genomic selection in low‐input smallholder animal production systems (Calus et al., 2014; Carvalheiro et al., 2014; Cleveland & Hickey, 2013; Yoshida et al., 2019). Thus, while genomic selection has been fully deployed in highly developed and industrialized animal production sectors, genomic approaches are yet to be implemented into breeding programs for several small‐scale production systems. Cheaper low‐density SNP panels (i.e. hundreds of markers), combined with genotype imputation strategies can potentially represent a cost‐effective approach to incorporate genomic information compared with using more expensive higher‐density SNP panels (i.e., thousands of markers). In fact, imputation from low‐ to high‐density genotypes have been demonstrated to provide similar accuracy levels of genomic selection to those obtained with the use of high‐density SNP panels only in livestock (Berry & Kearney, 2011; Cleveland & Hickey, 2013; VanRaden, 2020) and aquaculture species (Song and Hu, 2021; Yoshida et al., 2018), thus, decreasing the costs of genotyping and making genomic selection more affordable.

The use of ultra‐dense genomic information available from re‐sequencing data has been extensively evaluated in livestock to increase resolution of GWAS and improve accuracy of genomic selection (Ni et al., 2017; Raymond et al., 2018; Song et al., 2019). Despite that in aquaculture species the use of sequence data has not been widely applied, there is increasing interest to incorporate high‐resolution information in genomic applications to boost genetic improvement. For instance, a recent work showed an improvement in the accuracy of genomic selection for tolerance to chronic thermal stress in rainbow trout by using genetic variants from imputed re‐sequencing data and prioritized from GWAS (Yoshida & Yáñez, 2021). It is expected that in the near future more studies evaluating the potential of whole‐genome sequence data for genomic applications are available for farmed fish and shellfish.

6. AREAS FOR INNOVATION

Now that genomic selection has been increasingly and extensively adopted in aquaculture and livestock, the understanding of the current limitations is better acknowledged and there is renewed interest in the next steps for further innovation by the industry and scientific community. For instance, the identification, validation, and incorporation of causative variants into genomic selection models is one of the topics attracting great attention in animal breeders, because this source of information is expected to increase accuracy of selection and the rate of genetic progress (Pérez‐Enciso et al., 2015). Gene editing (e.g., CRISPR–Cas9) technology represents a powerful tool to investigate and exploit functional variants associated with complex traits for livestock and aquaculture breeding (Ruan et al., 2017).

Today, we also know that the molecular control of the expression of quantitative traits might be highly complex. A better understanding of the mechanisms involved in the gene regulation of complex traits comes from transcriptomic studies, which evaluate not only gene expression but also the role of non‐coding transcripts in trait variation. For example, it has been recently shown that differentially expressed long non‐coding RNA might be affecting meat quality traits in cattle, suggesting that specific transcripts have a role in tenderness and marbling (Muniz et al., 2022). Additional improvements required to make further advancements in selective breeding are not only related with the integration of novel sources of “omics” information but also related with the development of improved statistical approaches which may account, for example, for indirect genetic effects on the heritable variation of economically important traits (e.g., social effects), which might affect response to selection (Marjanovic et al., 2022).

7. CONCLUSION

The livestock and aquaculture industries have been visionary and innovative in the application of genomic technologies to improve production through selective breeding. The articles available in this special issue represent excellent examples of the current status in the application of genomics in animal breeding and also potential developments for further improvements. The utilization of genomic approaches to both evaluate and exploit heritable variation for key traits through genomic‐assisted breeding programs is paramount to the continued development and stability of worldwide animal production.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

JMY acknowledges funding from FONDECYT Regular grant (No. 1211761). JMY and PX acknowledges funding from ANSO grant (No. ANSO‐CR‐PP‐2O21‐03). PX acknowledges funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (U21A20264).

Yáñez, J. M. , Xu, P. , Carvalheiro, R. , & Hayes, B. (2022). Genomics applied to livestock and aquaculture breeding. Evolutionary Applications, 15, 517–522. 10.1111/eva.13378

REFERENCES

  1. Agudelo, J. F. G. , Mastrochirico‐Filho, V. A. , Borges, C. H. D. S. , Ariede, R. B. , Lira, L. V. G. , Neto, R. R. D. O. , de Freitas, M. V. , Sucerquia, G. A. L. , Vera, M. , Berrocal, M. H. M. , & Hashimoto, D. T. (2022). Genomic selection signatures in farmed Colossoma macropomum from tropical and subtropical regions in South America. Evolutionary Applications. 10.1111/eva.13351 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aramburu, O. , Ceballos, F. , Casanova, A. , Le Moan, A. , Hemmer‐Hansen, J. , Bekkevold, D. , Bouza, C. , & Martínez, P. (2020). Genomic signatures after five generations of intensive selective breeding: Runs of homozygosity and genetic diversity in representative domestic and wild populations of turbot (Scophthalmus maximus). Frontiers in Genetics, 11, 296. 10.3389/fgene.2020.00296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baesjou, J. P. , & Wellenreuther, M. (2021). Genomic signatures of domestication selection in the Australasian snapper (Chrysophrys auratus). Genes, 12(11), 1737. 10.3390/genes12111737 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Berry, D. P. , & Kearney, J. F. (2011). Imputation of genotypes from low‐to high‐density genotyping platforms and implications for genomic selection. Animal, 5(8), 1162–1169. 10.1017/S1751731111000309 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cádiz, M. I. , López, M. E. , Díaz‐Domínguez, D. , Cáceres, G. , Marin‐Nahuelpi, R. , Gomez‐Uchida, D. , Canales‐Aguirre, C. B. , Orozco‐terWenge, P. , & Yáñez, J. M. (2021). Detection of selection signatures in the genome of a farmed population of anadromous rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Genomics, 113(5), 3395–3404. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2021.07.027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cádiz, M. I. , López, M. E. , Díaz‐Domínguez, D. , Cáceres, G. , Yoshida, G. M. , Gomez‐Uchida, D. , & Yáñez, J. M. (2020). Whole genome re‐sequencing reveals recent signatures of selection in three strains of farmed Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–14. 10.1038/s41598-020-68064-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Calus, M. P. L. , Bouwman, A. C. , Hickey, J. M. , Veerkamp, R. F. , & Mulder, H. A. (2014). Evaluation of measures of correctness of genotype imputation in the context of genomic prediction: A review of livestock applications. Animal, 8(11), 1743–1753. 10.1017/S1751731114001803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carvalheiro, R. , Boison, S. A. , Neves, H. H. , Sargolzaei, M. , Schenkel, F. S. , Utsunomiya, Y. T. , O'Brien, A. M. P. , Sölkner, J. , McEwan, J. C. , Van Tassell, C. P. , Sonstegard, T. S. , & Garcia, J. F. (2014). Accuracy of genotype imputation in Nelore cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution, 46(1), 1–11. 10.1186/s12711-014-0069-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cleveland, M. A. , & Hickey, J. M. (2013). Practical implementation of cost‐effective genomic selection in commercial pig breeding using imputation. Journal of Animal Science, 91(8), 3583–3592. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Cubric‐Curik, V. , Novosel, D. , Brajkovic, V. , Rota Stabelli, O. , Krebs, S. , Sölkner, J. , Šalamon, D. , Ristov, S. , Berger, B. , Trivizaki, S. , Bizelis, I. , Ferenčaković, M. , Rothammer, S. , Kunz, E. , Simčič, M. , Dovč, P. , Bunevski, G. , Bytyqi, H. , Marković, M. , … Medugorac, I. (2021). Large‐scale mitogenome sequencing reveals consecutive expansions of domestic taurine cattle and supports sporadic aurochs introgression. Evolutionary Applications. 10.1111/eva.13315 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Georges, M. , Charlier, C. , & Hayes, B. (2019). Harnessing genomic information for livestock improvement. Nature Reviews Genetics, 20(3), 135–156. 10.1038/s41576-018-0082-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gjedrem, T. (2012). Genetic improvement for the development of efficient global aquaculture: A personal opinion review. Aquaculture, 344, 12–22. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.03.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gjedrem, T. , Robinson, N. , & Rye, M. (2012). The importance of selective breeding in aquaculture to meet future demands for animal protein: A review. Aquaculture, 350, 117–129. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.04.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gkagkavouzis, K. , Papakostas, S. , Maroso, F. , Karaiskou, N. , Carr, A. , Nielsen, E. E. , Bargelloni, L. , & Triantafyllidis, A. (2021). Investigating genetic diversity and genomic signatures of hatchery‐induced evolution in gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) populations. Diversity, 13(11), 563. 10.3390/d13110563 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Goddard, M. E. , & Hayes, B. J. (2009). Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes. Nature Reviews Genetics, 10(6), 381–391. 10.1038/nrg2575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gong, J. , Zhao, J. , Ke, Q. , Li, B. , Zhou, Z. , Wang, J. , Zhou, T. , Zheng, W. , & Xu, P. (2021). First genomic prediction and genome‐wide association for complex growth‐related traits in Rock Bream (Oplegnathus fasciatus). Evolutionary Applications, 2021, 1–14. 10.1111/eva.13218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Guo, Y. , Ou, J. H. , Zan, Y. , Wang, Y. , Li, H. , Zhu, C. , Chen, K. , Zhou, X. , Hu, X. , & Carlborg, Ö. (2021). Researching on the fine structure and admixture of the worldwide chicken population reveal connections between populations and important events in breeding history. Evolutionary Applications. 10.1111/eva.13241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gutierrez, A. P. , Yáñez, J. M. , & Davidson, W. S. (2016). Evidence of recent signatures of selection during domestication in an Atlantic salmon population. Marine Genomics, 26, 41–50. 10.1016/j.margen.2015.12.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hong Xia, J. , Bai, Z. , Meng, Z. , Zhang, Y. , Wang, L. , Liu, F. , Jing, W. , Yi Wan, Z. , Li, J. , Lin, H. , & Hua Yue, G. (2015). Signatures of selection in tilapia revealed by whole genome resequencing. Scientific Reports, 5(1), 1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hou, H. , Wang, X. , Ding, W. , Xiao, C. , Cai, X. , Lv, W. , Tu, Y. , Zhao, W. , Yao, J. , & Yang, C. (2021). Whole‐genome sequencing reveals the artificial selection and local environmental adaptability of pigeons (Columba livia). Evolutionary Applications. 10.1111/eva.13284 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Houston, R. D. , Bean, T. P. , Macqueen, D. J. , Gundappa, M. K. , Jin, Y. H. , Jenkins, T. L. , Selly, S. L. C. , Martin, S. A. M. , Stevens, J. R. , Santos, M. E. , Davie, A. , & Robledo, D. (2020). Harnessing genomics to fast‐track genetic improvement in aquaculture. Nature Reviews Genetics, 21(7), 389–409. 10.1038/s41576-020-0227-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hu, B. , Tian, Y. , Li, Q. , & Liu, S. (2021). Genomic signatures of artificial selection in the Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas . Evolutionary Applications. 10.1111/eva.13286 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Jiao, Z. , Tian, Y. , Hu, B. , Li, Q. , & Liu, S. (2021). Genome structural variation landscape and its selection signatures in the fast‐growing strains of the pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas . Marine Biotechnology, 23(5), 736–748. 10.1007/s10126-021-10060-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lhorente, J. P. , Araneda, M. , Neira, R. , & Yáñez, J. M. (2019). Advances in genetic improvement for salmon and trout aquaculture: The Chilean situation and prospects. Reviews in Aquaculture, 11(2), 340–353. 10.1111/raq.12335 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. López, M. E. , Benestan, L. , Moore, J. S. , Perrier, C. , Gilbey, J. , Di Genova, A. , Maass, A. , Diaz, D. , Lhorente, J. P. , Correa, K. , Neira, R. , Bernatchez, L. , & Yáñez, J. M. (2019). Comparing genomic signatures of domestication in two Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) populations with different geographical origins. Evolutionary Applications, 12(1), 137–156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. López, M. E. , Cádiz, M. I. , Rondeau, E. B. , Koop, B. F. , & Yáñez, J. M. (2021). Detection of selection signatures in farmed coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) using dense genome‐wide information. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 1–13. 10.1038/s41598-021-86154-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. López, M. E. , Linderoth, T. , Norris, A. , Lhorente, J. P. , Neira, R. , & Yáñez, J. M. (2019). Multiple selection signatures in farmed Atlantic salmon adapted to different environments across hemispheres. Frontiers in Genetics, 10, 901. 10.3389/fgene.2019.00901 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. López, M. E. , Neira, R. , & Yáñez, J. M. (2015). Applications in the search for genomic selection signatures in fish. Frontiers in Genetics, 5, 458. 10.3389/fgene.2014.00458 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Lv, J. , Cai, Y. , Liu, P. , Huang, X. , Lv, Z. , Zhang, R. , Zhao, L. , Bao, L. , Wang, S. , & Hu, J. (2022). Genomic differentiation and selection signatures of two elite varieties of Yesso scallop Mizuhopecten yessoensis . Aquaculture, 550, 737842. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.737842 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Marjanovic, J. , Mulder, H. A. , Rönnegård, L. , de Koning, D. J. , & Bijma, P. (2022). Capturing indirect genetic effects on phenotypic variability: Competition meets canalization. Evolutionary Applications. 10.1111/eva.13353 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Muniz, M. M. M. , Simielli Fonseca, L. F. , Scalez, D. C. B. , Vega, A. S. , dos Santos Silva, D. B. , Ferro, J. A. , Chardulo, A. L. , Baldi, F. , Cánovas, A. , & de Albuquerque, L. G. (2022). Characterization of novel lncRNA muscle expression profiles associated with meat quality in beef cattle. Evolutionary Applications. 10.1111/eva.13365 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Naval‐Sanchez, M. , McWilliam, S. , Evans, B. , Yáñez, J. M. , Houston, R. D. , & Kijas, J. W. (2020). Changed patterns of genomic variation following recent domestication: Selection sweeps in farmed Atlantic Salmon. Frontiers in Genetics, 11, 264. 10.3389/fgene.2020.00264 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ni, G. , Cavero, D. , Fangmann, A. , Erbe, M. , & Simianer, H. (2017). Whole‐genome sequence‐based genomic prediction in laying chickens with different genomic relationship matrices to account for genetic architecture. Genetics Selection Evolution, 49(1), 1–14. 10.1186/s12711-016-0277-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Palaiokostas, C. , Anjum, A. , Jeuthe, H. , Kurta, K. , Lopes Pinto, F. , & de Koning, D. J. (2021). A genomic‐based vision on the genetic diversity and key performance traits in selectively bred Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Evolutionary Applications. 10.1111/eva.13261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Paul, K. , D'Ambrosio, J. , & Phocas, F. (2021). Temporal and region‐specific variations in genome‐wide inbreeding effects on female size and reproduction traits of rainbow trout. Evolutionary Applications, 1–18. 10.1111/eva.13308 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Pérez‐Enciso, M. , Rincón, J. C. , & Legarra, A. (2015). Sequence‐vs. chip‐assisted genomic selection: Accurate biological information is advised. Genetics Selection Evolution, 47(1), 1–14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Raymond, B. , Bouwman, A. C. , Schrooten, C. , Houwing‐Duistermaat, J. , & Veerkamp, R. F. (2018). Utility of whole‐genome sequence data for across‐breed genomic prediction. Genetics Selection Evolution, 50(1), 1–12. 10.1186/s12711-018-0396-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ruan, J. , Xu, J. , Chen‐Tsai, R. Y. , & Li, K. (2017). Genome editing in livestock: Are we ready for a revolution in animal breeding industry? Transgenic Research, 26(6), 715–726. 10.1007/s11248-017-0049-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Song, H. , Ye, S. , Jiang, Y. , Zhang, Z. , Zhang, Q. , & Ding, X. (2019). Using imputation‐based whole‐genome sequencing data to improve the accuracy of genomic prediction for combined populations in pigs. Genetics Selection Evolution, 51(1), 1–13. 10.1186/s12711-019-0500-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Sun, L. , Liu, S. , Wang, R. , Jiang, Y. , Zhang, Y. , Zhang, J. , Bao, L. , Kaltenboeck, L. , Dunham, R. , Waldbieser, G. , & Liu, Z. (2014). Identification and analysis of genome‐wide SNPs provide insight into signatures of selection and domestication in channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus). PLoS One, 9(10), e109666. 10.1371/journal.pone.0109666 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Valenza‐Troubat, N. , Hilario, E. , Montanari, S. , Morrison‐Whittle, P. , Ashton, D. , Ritchie, P. , & Wellenreuther, M. (2021). Evaluating new species for aquaculture: A genomic dissection of growth in the New Zealand silver trevally (Pseudocaranx georgianus). Evolutionary Applications, 1–12. 10.1111/eva.13281 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. VanRaden, P. M. (2020). Symposium review: How to implement genomic selection. Journal of Dairy Science, 103(6), 5291–5301. 10.3168/jds.2019-17684 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Vera, M. , Pardo, B. G. , Cao, A. , Vilas, R. , Fernández, C. , Blanco, A. , Gutierrez, A. P. , Bean, T. P. , Houston, R. D. , Villalba, A. , & Martínez, P. (2019). Signatures of selection for bonamiosis resistance in European flat oyster (Ostrea edulis): New genomic tools for breeding programs and management of natural resources. Evolutionary Applications, 12, 1781–1796. 10.1111/eva.12832 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Verbyla, K. L. , Kube, P. D. , & Evans, B. S. (2021). Commercial implementation of genomic selection in Tasmanian Atlantic salmon: Scheme evolution and validation. Evolutionary Applications, 1–14. 10.1111/eva.13304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wang, H. , Lv, J. , Zeng, Q. , Liu, Y. , Xing, Q. , Wang, S. , Hu, J. , & Bao, L. (2021). Genetic differentiation and selection signatures in two bay scallop (Argopecten irradians) breeds revealed by whole‐genome resequencing analysis. Aquaculture, 543, 736944. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736944 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Xu, J. , Jiang, Y. , Zhao, Z. , Zhang, H. , Peng, W. , Feng, J. , Dong, C. , Chen, B. , Tai, R. , & Xu, P. (2019). Patterns of geographical and potential adaptive divergence in the genome of the common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Frontiers in Genetics, 10, 660. 10.3389/fgene.2019.00660 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Yáñez, J. M. , Joshi, R. , & Yoshida, G. M. (2020). Genomics to accelerate genetic improvement in tilapia. Animal Genetics, 51(5), 658–674. 10.1111/age.12989 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Yáñez, J. M. , Newman, S. , & Houston, R. D. (2015). Genomics in aquaculture to better understand species biology and accelerate genetic progress. Frontiers in Genetics, 6, 128. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Yoshida, G. M. , Carvalheiro, R. , Lhorente, J. P. , Correa, K. , Figueroa, R. , Houston, R. D. , & Yáñez, J. M. (2018). Accuracy of genotype imputation and genomic predictions in a two‐generation farmed Atlantic salmon population using high‐density and low‐density SNP panels. Aquaculture, 491, 147–154. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2018.03.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Yoshida, G. M. , Lhorente, J. P. , Correa, K. , Soto, J. , Salas, D. , & Yáñez, J. M. (2019). Genome‐wide association study and cost‐efficient genomic predictions for growth and fillet yield in Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics, 9(8), 2597–2607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Yoshida, G. M. , & Yáñez, J. M. (2021). Increased accuracy of genomic predictions for growth under chronic thermal stress in rainbow trout by prioritizing variants from GWAS using imputed sequence data. Evolutionary Applications. 10.1111/eva.13240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Zeder, M. A. (2012). The domestication of animals. Journal of Anthropological Research, 68(2), 161–190. 10.3998/jar.0521004.0068.201 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Zhao, J. , Bai, H. , Ke, Q. , Li, B. , Zhou, Z. , Wang, H. , Chen, B. , Pu, F. , Zhou, T. , & Xu, P. (2021). Genomic selection for parasitic ciliate Cryptocaryon irritans resistance in large yellow croaker. Aquaculture, 531, 735786. 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.735786 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Evolutionary Applications are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES