What unanswered questions remain about the use of molecular markers in beef production?

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5965/223811712442025972

Keywords:

Bibliometric analysis, molecular genetics, beef quality, knowledge gap, SNP, animal breeding

Abstract

The application of molecular markers in beef production has garnered significant attention in recent years due to its potential to enhance productivity and efficiency. This study conducted a systematic review and bibliometric analysis using the Web of Science (WoS) database to identify and analyze the main molecular markers utilized in beef production. A total of 808 articles published between 2013 and 2023 were retrieved, of which 722 met the inclusion criteria after duplicate removal and filtering by publication year. The bibliometric analysis was performed using the R software and the bibliometrix R package to examine keyword trends and research patterns. The results indicate that Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) and Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) were the most frequently cited molecular markers, highlighting their relevance in genetic improvement studies. PCR remains the most widely used technique due to its efficiency in DNA amplification, while SNPs offer a high-resolution approach to detecting genetic variations. Conversely, Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP) marker was the least cited, likely due to its labor-intensive and cost-prohibitive nature. A geographical analysis of the publications revealed that China, the United States, and Brazil were the leading contributors, with China emerging as the most prolific country in this field. Despite being one of the largest beef producers, Brazil lags in scientific contributions, primarily due to limited research funding. The findings indicate an increasing integration of molecular markers in beef production. However, a knowledge gap persists in connecting genetic markers with microbial resistance and meat quality traits. Future research should address these connections to optimize meat production efficiency and quality.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ARIA M & CUCCURULLO C. 2017. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics 11: 959–975.

BINANDEH F et al. 2020. Evaluation of stx1, stx2, hlyA, and eaeA virulence genes in Escherichia coli O157:H7 isolated from meat (beef and mutton) in Hamedan, Iran, during 2015–2016. International Journal of Enteric Pathogens 8: 55.

BORÉM A & CAIXETA. 2009. Marcadores moleculares. 2.ed. Viçosa: UFV.

CAETANO AR. 2009. Marcadores SNP: conceitos básicos, aplicações no manejo e no melhoramento animal e perspectivas para o futuro. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 38: 64–71.

CAPES. 2023. Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior. Documento técnico do Qualis Periódicos. Available at: https://www.gov.br/capes/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/documentos/avaliacao/avaliacao-quadrienal-2017/DocumentotecnicoQualisPeriodicosfinal.pdf. Access on: Jan. 25, 2025.

DOUDNA JA & CHARPENTIER E. 2014. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346: 1258096.

GALVÃO TF & PEREIRA MG. 2014. Revisões sistemáticas da literatura: passos para sua elaboração. Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde 23: 183–184.

GOES PRN et al. 2012. Disponibilidade, usos e limitações dos marcadores moleculares em espécies de animais de produção. Iniciação Científica Cesumar 14: 1.

GOMEZ SA et al. 2014. Gene markers of generic Escherichia coli associated with colonization and persistence of Escherichia coli O157 in cattle. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 117: 140–148.

IPEA. 2023. R&D efficiency in Brazil. Available at: https://www.ipea.gov.br/cts/en/all-contents/articles/articles/264-r-defficiency-in-brazil. Access on: Jun. 26, 2025.

KOOHMARAIE M & GEESINK GH. 2006. Contribution of postmortem muscle biochemistry to the delivery of consistent meat quality with particular focus on the calpain system. Meat Science 74: 34–43.

LANZA MA et al. 2000. Aplicação de marcadores moleculares no melhoramento genético. Boletim Agropecuário 21: 97–108.

MARQUES F & QUEIROZ C. 2023. Brazilian scientific output suffers decline. Revista Pesquisa FAPESP 331. Available at: https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/brazilian-scientific-output-suffers-decline/. Access on: Feb. 12, 2025.

NSB. 2024. National Science Board. Publications output: U.S. trends and international comparisons. Science and Engineering Indicators 2024. Available at: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202333/. Access on: Nov. 01, 2024.

OECD. 2023. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Main Science and Technology Indicators – 2023/1. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/sti/msti.htm. Access on: Jun. 26, 2025.

PACHECO RF et al. 2023. Meta-analysis of meat quality of cattle slaughtered with different subcutaneous fat thicknesses. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 58: e03110.

PAGE MJ et al. 2022. A declaração PRISMA 2020: diretriz atualizada para relatar revisões sistemáticas. Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde 31: e2022.

PARK S et al. 2018. Genetic, management, and nutritional factors affecting intramuscular fat deposition in beef cattle – A review. Animal Bioscience 31: 1043–1061.

R CORE TEAM. 2024. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

REGITANO LCA & COUTINHO LL. 2001. Introdução à análise de marcadores moleculares. In: REGITANO LCA & COUTINHO LL (Eds.). Biologia molecular aplicada à produção animal. Brasília: Embrapa. p. 11–25.

ROUDBARI Z et al. 2020. Identification of biological pathways contributing to marbling in skeletal muscle to improve beef cattle breeding. Frontiers in Genetics 10: 495856.

SAMPAIO RF & MANCINI MC. 2007. Estudos de revisão sistemática: um guia para síntese criteriosa da evidência científica. Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia 11: 83–89.

SANTOS LLS et al. 2023. A publicação científica brasileira e chinesa indexada na Web of Science: análise da área de Ciência da Informação. Transinformação 35: 227169.

SAUCEDO-URIARTE JA et al. 2024. Association of polymorphisms in CAPN1 and CAST genes with the meat tenderness of Creole cattle. Scientia Agricola 81: e20230098.

SBPC. 2022. Sociedade Brasileira para o Progresso da Ciência. Ciência vale o futuro do país. Available at: https://portal.sbpcnet.org.br/noticias/ciencia-vale-o-futuro-do-pais-afirmam-pesquisadores-durante-ato-virtual/. Access on: Jun. 26, 2025.

TRANFIELD D et al. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management 14: 207–222.

ZOLET ACT et al. 2017. Marcadores moleculares na era genômica: metodologias e aplicações. Ribeirão Preto: Sociedade Brasileira de Genética. 181p.

Downloads

Published

12-12-2025

How to Cite

SILVA, João Gabriel Lira da; PIERONI, Camila; ARAÚJO, Déborah Galvão Peixôto Guedes de. What unanswered questions remain about the use of molecular markers in beef production?. Revista de Ciências Agroveterinárias, Lages, v. 24, n. 4, p. 972–985, 2025. DOI: 10.5965/223811712442025972. Disponível em: https://www.periodicos.udesc.br/index.php/agroveterinaria/article/view/27087. Acesso em: 19 dec. 2025.

Issue

Section

Review Article - Science of Animals and Derived Products