MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294832719 · doi:10.1111/raq.12733

Applying genetic technologies to combat infectious diseases in aquaculture

2022· review· en· W4294832719 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas A. Robinson, Diego Robledo, Lene Sveen, Rose Ruiz Daniels, Aleksei Krasnov, Andrew Coates, Luke T. Barrett, Marie Lillehammer, Anne Kettunen, Ben L. Phillips, Tim Dempster, Andrea Doeschl‐Wilson, Francisca Samsing, Gareth F. Difford, Sarah J. Salisbury, Bjarne Gjerde, John‐Erik Haugen, Erik Burgerhout, Binyam S. Dagnachew, Dominic Kurian, Mark D. Fast, Morten Rye, Marcela Salazar, James E. Bron, Sean J. Monaghan, Céleste Jacq, Howard I. Browman, Anne Berit Skiftesvik, David M. Fields, Erik Selander, Samantha Bui, Anna K. Sonesson, Stanko Škugor, Tone‐Kari Østbye, Ross D. Houston

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Aquaculture · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Genetics and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDirectorate for Biological SciencesFiskeri - og havbruksnæringens forskningsfondNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsAquacultureFisheryBiologyBiotechnologyFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disease and parasitism cause major welfare, environmental and economic concerns for global aquaculture. In this review, we examine the status and potential of technologies that exploit genetic variation in host resistance to tackle this problem. We argue that there is an urgent need to improve understanding of the genetic mechanisms involved, leading to the development of tools that can be applied to boost host resistance and reduce the disease burden. We draw on two pressing global disease problems as case studies-sea lice infestations in salmonids and white spot syndrome in shrimp. We review how the latest genetic technologies can be capitalised upon to determine the mechanisms underlying inter- and intra-species variation in pathogen/parasite resistance, and how the derived knowledge could be applied to boost disease resistance using selective breeding, gene editing and/or with targeted feed treatments and vaccines. Gene editing brings novel opportunities, but also implementation and dissemination challenges, and necessitates new protocols to integrate the technology into aquaculture breeding programmes. There is also an ongoing need to minimise risks of disease agents evolving to overcome genetic improvements to host resistance, and insights from epidemiological and evolutionary models of pathogen infestation in wild and cultured host populations are explored. Ethical issues around the different approaches for achieving genetic resistance are discussed. Application of genetic technologies and approaches has potential to improve fundamental knowledge of mechanisms affecting genetic resistance and provide effective pathways for implementation that could lead to more resistant aquaculture stocks, transforming global aquaculture.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in AquacultureSame topicAnimal Genetics and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207