Edinburgh Research Explorer

Removal of alleles by genome editing (RAGE) against deleterious load

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Related Edinburgh Organisations

Open Access permissions

Open

Documents

  • Download as Adobe PDF

    Rights statement: © The Author(s) 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creat iveco mmons .org/ publi cdoma in/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

    Final published version, 3 MB, PDF-document

    Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY)

Original languageEnglish
JournalGenetics Selection Evolution
Early online date17 Apr 2019
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 17 Apr 2019

Abstract

Background: In this paper, we simulate deleterious load in an animal breeding program, and compare the efficiency of genome editing and selection for decreasing it. Deleterious variants can be identified by bioinformatics screening
methods that use sequence conservation and biological prior information about protein function. However, once deleterious variants have been identified, how can they be used in breeding?
Results: We simulated a closed animal breeding population that is subject to both natural selection against deleterious
load and artificial selection for a quantitative trait representing the breeding goal. Deleterious load was polygenic and was due to either codominant or recessive variants. We compared strategies for removal of deleterious alleles by
genome editing (RAGE) to selection against carriers. When deleterious variants were codominant, the best strategy for prioritizing variants was to prioritize low-frequency variants. When deleterious variants were recessive, the best strategy
was to prioritize variants with an intermediate frequency. Selection against carriers was inefficient when variants were codominant, but comparable to editing one variant per sire when variants were recessive.
Conclusions: Genome editing of deleterious alleles reduces deleterious load, but requires the simultaneous editing
of multiple deleterious variants in the same sire to be effective when deleterious variants are recessive. In the short
term, selection against carriers is a possible alternative to genome editing when variants are recessive. Our results suggest
that, in the future, there is the potential to use RAGE against deleterious load in animal breeding.

ID: 81876533