Research Note: Genome-wide association study for natural antibodies and resilience in a purebred layer chicken line

Doekes, Harmen P.; Bovenhuis, Henk; Berghof, T.V.L.; Peeters, Katrijn; Visscher, J.; Mulder, H.A.

doi:10.1016/j.psj.2022.102312

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Egg production can be considered as a ‘maximum trait’, meaning that breeding programs aim at reaching the maximum phenotype of one egg per day, which is the biological limit, and positive deviations in EP can only be the consequence of an additional egg laid the day before (as explained in ‘ Methods ’). Moreover, EP is binary, making the interpretation of resilience indicators based on EP challenging (see also Doekes et al [ 32 ]). In contrast, BW can be considered as an ‘optimum trait’, i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It should be noted that the populations studied here, part of the phenotypes, and part of the results were previously described in Bedere et al [ 28 ], Doekes et al [ 32 ], and Berghof et al [ 33 , 34 ]. Bedere et al [ 28 ] investigated the genetic characteristics of the purebred and crossbred individuals and the purebred-crossbred correlations of the resilience indicators based on average batch production for the laying period from 25 to 83 weeks of age with 1-week-intervals.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Bedere et al [ 28 ] investigated the genetic characteristics of the purebred and crossbred individuals and the purebred-crossbred correlations of the resilience indicators based on average batch production for the laying period from 25 to 83 weeks of age with 1-week-intervals. Doekes et al [ 32 ] investigated the genetic characteristics of the NAb titers and the resilience indicators for Brown. The studies of Berghof et al [ 33 , 34 ] investigated the genetic characteristics of the NAb titers for White.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The genetics of resilience and its relationships with egg production traits and antibody traits in chickens

Berghof,

Bedere,

Peeters

et al. 2024

Genet Sel Evol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Resilience is the capacity of an animal to be minimally affected by disturbances or to rapidly return to its initial state before exposure to a disturbance. Resilient livestock are desired because of their improved health and increased economic profit. Genetic improvement of resilience may also lead to trade-offs with production traits. Recently, resilience indicators based on longitudinal data have been suggested, but they need further evaluation to determine whether they are indeed predictive of improved resilience, such as disease resilience. This study investigated different resilience indicators based on deviations between expected and observed egg production (EP) by exploring their genetic parameters, their possible trade-offs with production traits, and their relationships with antibody traits in chickens. Methods Egg production in a nucleus breeding herd environment based on 1-week-, 2-week-, or 3-week-intervals of two purebred chicken lines, a white egg-laying (33,825 chickens) and a brown egg-laying line (34,397 chickens), were used to determine deviations between observed EP and expected average batch EP, and between observed EP and expected individual EP. These deviations were used to calculate three types of resilience indicators for two life periods of each individual: natural logarithm-transformed variance (ln(variance)), skewness, and lag-one autocorrelation (autocorrelation) of deviations from 25 to 83 weeks of age and from 83 weeks of age to end of life. Then, we estimated their genetic correlations with EP traits and with two antibody traits. Results The most promising resilience indicators were those based on 1-week-intervals, as they had the highest heritability estimates (0.02–0.12) and high genetic correlations (above 0.60) with the same resilience indicators based on longer intervals. The three types of resilience indicators differed genetically from each other, which indicates that they possibly capture different aspects of resilience. Genetic correlations of the resilience indicator traits based on 1-week-intervals with EP traits were favorable or zero, which means that trade-off effects were marginal. The resilience indicator traits based on 1-week-intervals also showed no genetic correlations with the antibody traits, which suggests that they are not informative for improved immunity or vice versa in the nucleus environment. Conclusions This paper gives direction towards the evaluation and implementation of resilience indicators, i.e. to further investigate resilience indicator traits based on 1-week-intervals, in breeding programs for selecting genetically more resilient layer chickens.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The genetics of resilience and its relationships with egg production traits and antibody traits in chickens

Berghof,

Bedere,

Peeters

et al. 2024

Genet Sel Evol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The shape of trajectories expressed during development, during productive maturity and as performance declines with age is influenced by inherited and developmentally acquired factors and by contemporary environmental conditions such as feed availability. Profile analysis requires a reference trajectory as the basis for estimation of deviations (Doekes et al 2022). Reference trajectories have been modelled on both individual animal data and group means and is a topic requiring further refinement.…”

Section: Profile Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A variety of descriptors of deviation from the reference trajectory have been explored as indicators of functional integrity and resilience (e.g. Berghof et al 2019a;Revilla et al 2019;Adriaens et al 2020;Poppe et al 2020;Doekes et al 2022). Informative measures of variability are likely to differ among the species, production systems, data sources and the biological functions being analysed.…”

Section: Profile Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Indicators of functional integrity in production animals

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An ability to describe the quality of lived experience across the course of an animal’s life is of increasing interest in studies on wellbeing in farm animals. Integrity of physical functions is an important aspect of the tripartite model of wellbeing: feeling, functioning and interacting well. This review examines measures of functional integrity as potential indicators of functional (eudaimonic) wellbeing. Copious literature shows that coping with day-to-day fluctuations in the environment influences (1) periodicity of biorhythms, (2) allocation of resources to growth, defence and repair, and (3) rate of biological aging. Here we review opportunities for assessing functional integrity through analysis of (1) the dynamic status of physiological and behavioural variables, (2) the accretion of resources in production tissues (milk, eggs, body mass, offspring) and physical structures (fibre, hoof, bone, tooth, placoid scale, otolith, beak), and (3) biological age. A reduction in periodicity of biorhythms, complexity of behaviours, or uniformity of trajectories of growth and production is often associated with poorer current and future health outcomes and shorter functional longevity. These analytical approaches are grounded in statistical measures of stability in complex dynamic systems. Additionally, the cumulative effect of wear and tear on biological age can be assessed via telomere length, DNA methylation, biomarkers of allostatic load, hair cortisol, and physiological functional capacity. Timeseries of behaviour, physiology and accretion provide a richer record of functional integrity than do cumulative indicators of biological age. Indicators of integrity are needed for each phase of the animal’s life course including attainment of developmental competencies, stability of mature performance, and rate of decline with advancing age, to provide a comprehensive record across the whole of the animal’s life. The utility of measures may differ between real-time and retrospective assessments and between application to every individual versus sentinels. Further validation is required for interpretating measures of functional integrity as indicators of the functional aspect of wellbeing, together with determining their practicality and reliability before translation to commercial settings is feasible. A single type of indicator of functional wellbeing (e.g. DNA methylation) is unlikely to have utility for all life stages, species, production systems, and environments.

show abstract