Livestock breeding for the 21st century: the promise of the editing revolution

Proudfoot, Christopher; McFarlane, Gus R.; Whitelaw, Bruce; Lillico, Simon

doi:10.15302/j-fase-2019304

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The recent discovery of gene editing, a controlled change in the DNA of a living organism, opens the possibility of solving issues related to animal production [12]. Gene editing proponents promise solutions for animal health and welfare problems facing the livestock industries [13,14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrating technology into agricultural systems has gained considerable traction, particularly over the last half century. Agricultural systems that incorporate the public’s concerns regarding farm animal welfare are more likely to be socially accepted in the long term, a key but often forgotten component of sustainability. Gene editing is a tool that has received considerable attention in the last five years, given its potential capacity to improve farm animal health, welfare, and production efficiency. This study aimed to explore the attitudes of Brazilian citizens regarding the applications of gene editing in cattle that generate offspring without horns; are more resistant to heat; and have increased muscle tissue. Using a mixed-methods approach, we surveyed participants via face-to-face, using in-depth interviews (Study 1) and an online questionnaire containing closed-ended questions (Study 2). Overall, the acceptability of gene editing was low and in cases where support was given it was highly dependent on the type and purpose of the application proposed. Using gene editing to improve muscle tissue growth was viewed as less acceptable compared to using gene editing to reduce heat stress or to produce hornless cattle. Support declined when the application was perceived to harm animal welfare, to be profit motivated or to reinforce the status quo of intensive livestock systems. The acceptability of gene editing was reduced when perceptions of risks and benefits were viewed as unevenly or unfairly distributed among consumers, corporations, different types of farmers, and the animals. Interviewees did not consider gene editing a “natural” process, citing dissenting reasons such as the high degree of human interference and the acceleration of natural processes. Our findings raised several issues that may need to be addressed for gene editing to comply with the social pillar of sustainable agriculture.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…AFB 1 can also negatively impact meat quality due to associated oxidative stress, inflammation, and the dysregulation of gut microbiota and dysbiosis in animals [ 11 , 12 ]. Various physical, chemical, and biological approaches to preventing AFB 1 contamination have been developed [ 13 , 14 , 15 ]. For instance, transgenic pigs expressing aflatoxin-detoxifizyme (ADTZ) exhibit resistance to AFB 1 toxicity [ 16 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genome-Scale CRISPR Knockout Screening Identifies BACH1 as a Key Regulator of Aflatoxin B1-Induced Oxidative Damage

Zhang

Zhao

et al. 2022

Antioxidants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) is amongst the mycotoxins commonly affecting human and animal health, raising global food safety and control concerns. The mechanisms underlying AFB1 toxicity are poorly understood. Moreover, antidotes against AFB1 are lacking. Genome-wide CRISPR/Cas9 knockout screening in porcine kidney cells identified the transcription factor BTB and CNC homolog 1 (BACH1) as a gene required for AFB1 toxicity. The inhibition of BACH1 expression in porcine kidney cells and human hepatoma cells resulted in increased resistance to AFB1. BACH1 depletion attenuates AFB1-induced oxidative damage via the upregulation of antioxidant genes. Subsequently, virtual structural screening identified the small molecule 1-Piperazineethanol, α-[(1,3-benzodioxol-5-yloxy)methyl] -4-(2-methoxyphenyl) (M2) as an inhibitor of BACH1. M2 and its analogues inhibited AFB1-induced porcine and human cell death in vitro, while M2 administration significantly improved AFB1-induced symptoms of weight loss and liver injury in vivo. These findings demonstrate that BACH1 plays a central role in AFB1-induced oxidative damage by regulating antioxidant gene expression. We also present a potent candidate small-molecule inhibitor in developing novel treatments for AFB1 toxicity.

show abstract

“…Gene editing is a further development in breeding that facilities faster genetic advancement than the more traditional genetic selection techniques. Gene editing is proposed as a means to improve animal health, animal welfare, and production efficiency and to create the potential to produce milk with reduced allergenic potential, through the controlled manipulation of DNA in a single generation [32,65]. In research on Brazilian consumers, it was identified that the acceptability of gene editing in cattle was increased by perceptions of benefits to animals, and influenced by the perceived distribution of benefits [32].…”

Section: Breedingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing ‘Smart’ Dairy Farming Responsive to Farmers and Consumer-Citizens: A Review

Henchion

Regan

Beecher

et al. 2022

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Innovation has resulted in more dairy products being produced with less inputs than ever before. It has also affected how animals are raised, the structure of the sector and the nature of products produced. Not all impacts have been positive. As disruptive technologies—such as precision farming and robotics—herald significant change, it is timely to reflect on the perspectives of different actors on innovations within the sector. Drawing on a review of academic literature, this paper considers farmers’ and consumer-citizens’ perspectives; as expected, their diverse knowledge, interests and values surface a range of perspectives. To provide focus to the study, it examines technologies across three stages of the dairy production cycle: breeding, feeding and milking. It finds that consumer-citizen and farmer perspectives have been examined by researchers in several countries, using a variety of methods, across a range of technologies. It finds both areas of agreement and tension within and between consumer-citizen and producer cohorts. While differences in knowledge account for some variation, differences in values are also significant. The extent to which efforts can and should be put into addressing differences is raised as a point for reflection.

show abstract

Livestock breeding for the 21st century: the promise of the editing revolution

Cited by 10 publications

References 55 publications

Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public?

Gene Editing for Improved Animal Welfare and Production Traits in Cattle: Will This Technology Be Embraced or Rejected by the Public?

Genome-Scale CRISPR Knockout Screening Identifies BACH1 as a Key Regulator of Aflatoxin B1-Induced Oxidative Damage

Developing ‘Smart’ Dairy Farming Responsive to Farmers and Consumer-Citizens: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About