ArticleBMC genomics2026
Genomic analysis of the Ixworth chicken: insights into a local dual-purpose breed.
Article in BMC genomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Whole-genome resequencing data of the Ixworth chicken breed.BMC research notes · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntensive genetic selection in commercial poultry has greatly enhanced productivity, but it has also caused substantial genetic erosion, affecting long-term sustainability. Body weight and growth rate as well as egg production are considered antagonistic traits, leading to highly specialized broiler and layer lines with further loss of diversity. Local breeds, such as the British Ixworth dual-purpose chicken, are vital reservoirs of biodiversity, yet the genomic basis of their balanced traits remains poorly understood. At the same time, ethical concerns regarding male chick culling have led several European countries to ban the practice in recent years, renewing interest in dual-purpose systems in which both sexes can be viably utilized. By addressing both genetic erosion and chick culling, dual-purpose chickens can contribute to more sustainable poultry production.
resultsTo investigate the genetic architecture of the Ixworth chicken, we conducted high-resolution whole-genome sequencing, and compared it with its wild progenitor and specialized commercial lines for layers and broilers. Our analyses identify the Ixworth chicken as genetically distinct, with moderate nucleotide diversity, low inbreeding, and rapid decay of linkage disequilibrium, suggesting limited historical selection despite possible recent bottlenecks associated with its critical status. Its genetic architecture further revealed distinguished selection signatures balancing meat productivity (chromosomes 1, 6, 28) with egg-laying performance (chromosomes 1, 3, 10), contrasting with the narrow selection for growth in broilers and reproductive efficiency in layers. Notably, we discovered a distinct selective sweep on chromosome 4 (90.10–90.30 Mb) that harbors the developmental regulator CYP26B1, the exocytosis regulator EXOC6B, regulatory long non-coding RNAs, and co-localizes with QTLs for cooking loss and fatty acid composition. This alignment provides a compelling genomic basis for the breed’s historical reputation for superior table quality, a trait likely selected either deliberately or as a fortunate consequence of selection on a linked developmental pathway.
conclusionsThis study uncovers the complex genetic legacy of the British Ixworth dual-purpose breed, offering insights into population parameters and positive selection signatures that may help to enhance biodiversity and animal welfare in future breeding programs and guide conservation efforts of the breed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.