Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comment
. 2019 May 30;15(5):e1008089.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008089. eCollection 2019 May.

No "doom" in chicken domestication?

Mirte Bosse  1   2
Affiliations
Comment

No "doom" in chicken domestication?

Mirte Bosse. PLoS Genet. .
No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author has declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Schematic overview of chicken domestication and selection.
As reported by the study in [22], the alleles that differ strongly in allele frequency between domestic and wild chickens show a deficit in potentially deleterious alleles. This indicates that deleterious alleles were successfully selected against during the trajectory of domestication and breed formation and did not rise in frequency in their wild counterparts either. However, which process contributed most to current differences between wild and domestic chickens and when purging occurred remain open questions.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment on

  • Genetics of adaptation in modern chicken.
    Qanbari S, Rubin CJ, Maqbool K, Weigend S, Weigend A, Geibel J, Kerje S, Wurmser C, Peterson AT, Brisbin IL Jr, Preisinger R, Fries R, Simianer H, Andersson L. Qanbari S, et al. PLoS Genet. 2019 Apr 29;15(4):e1007989. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007989. eCollection 2019 Apr. PLoS Genet. 2019. PMID: 31034467 Free PMC article.

References

    1. Lu J, Tang T, Tang H, Huang J, Shi S, Wu CI. The accumulation of deleterious mutations in rice genomes: a hypothesis on the cost of domestication. Trends Genet. 2006; 22: 126–131. 10.1016/j.tig.2006.01.004 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schubert M, Jonsson H, Chang D, Sarkissian CD, Ermini L, Ginolhac A, et al. Prehistoric genomes reveal the genetic foundation and cost of horse domestication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2014; 111(52): e5661–e5669. 10.1073/pnas.1416991111 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marsden CD, Ortega‐Del Vecchyo D, O'Brien DP, Taylor JF, Ramirez O, Vila C, et al. Bottlenecks and selective sweeps during domestication have increased deleterious genetic variation in dogs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2016; 113(1): 152–157. 10.1073/pnas.1512501113 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wang L, Beissinger TM, Lorant A, Ross-Ibarra C, Ross-Ibarra J, Hufford MB. The interplay of demography and selection during maize domestication and expansion. Genome Biol. 2017; 18: 215 10.1186/s13059-017-1346-4 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gaut BS, Seymour DK, Liu Q, Zhou Y. Demography and its effects on genomic variation in crop domestication. Nat. Plants. 2018; 4: 512–520. 10.1038/s41477-018-0210-1 - DOI - PubMed