4.6 Review

The Complex and Diverse Genetic Architecture of the Absence of Horns (Polledness) in Domestic Ruminants, including Goats and Sheep

期刊

GENES
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes13050832

关键词

horn development; hornless; intersexuality; Bovidae; bovine; caprine; ovine; ruminants; genome editing

资金

  1. H. Wilhelm Schaumann Stiftung, Hamburg, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review compares the molecular differences among the causes of inherited polledness in domestic ruminant species, highlighting the complexity of genetic causes for the lack of horns in small ruminants. The associated disorder of intersexuality-polled intersex syndrome (PIS) in goats is also discussed.
Horns are the most obvious common feature of Bovidae. The naturally occurring absence of horns in these species, also known as polledness, is of surprisingly heterogeneous nature, although they are Mendelian traits. This review compares in detail the molecular differences among the causes of inherited polledness in the domestic ruminant species of cattle, yak, sheep, and goat based on the causal gene variants that have been discovered in recent years. The genetic causes for the lack of horns in small ruminants seem not only to be more complex, e.g., in sheep, breed-specific characteristics are still unexplained, but in goats, there is also the associated disorder of intersexuality-polled intersex syndrome (PIS). In connection with animal welfare and the associated discussion about a legal ban on the dehorning of all farm animals, naturally hornless animals and the causal genetic variants are of increasing research interest in the age of genome editing. However, the low acceptance of genetic engineering in livestock, especially in European societies, limits its use in food-producing animals. Therefore, genotype-based targeted selection of naturally occurring variants is still a widely used method for spreading this desired trait within and across populations, at least in cattle and sheep.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据