Next Article in Journal
Core–Shell Magnetic Gold Nanoparticles with Chitosan Coating as a SERS Substrate: A Rapid Detection Strategy for Malachite Green Contamination in Aquatic Foods
Previous Article in Journal
Observations on the Biology and Fishery of the Marbled Spinefoot (Siganus rivulatus Forsskål & Niebuhr, 1775) in the Eastern Red Sea
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fishes
Volume 10
Issue 5
10.3390/fishes10050220
fishes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

Championing Line Breeding and Hybridization in Aquaculture to Safeguard Intellectual Property

by
Gen Hua Yue
1,2
1
Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117604, Singapore
2
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117558, Singapore
Fishes 2025, 10(5), 220; https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10050220
Submission received: 12 March 2025 / Revised: 27 April 2025 / Accepted: 7 May 2025 / Published: 9 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Genetics and Biotechnology)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Line breeding and line hybridization are pivotal genetic strategies in aquaculture, enabling breeders to enhance traits such as growth rate, disease resistance, and environmental tolerance in species like tilapia and Asian seabass. Though resource-intensive, these techniques yield long-term benefits, including improved productivity and sustainability. Traditional intellectual property (IP) protections, such as patents, are challenging to enforce in aquaculture because the biological replication and unauthorized breeding of aquatic species make it difficult to track and control proprietary genetic materials. Line hybridization offers a biological safeguard by producing hybrids that are challenging to replicate without access to proprietary parent lines. This inherent IP protection empowers breeders to safeguard their innovations, fostering sustainable growth and profitability in the aquaculture industry.
Keywords:
line breeding; line hybridization; aquaculture; genetic improvement; intellectual property protection
Key Contribution: This review highlights the dual benefits of line breeding and line hybridization in aquaculture, enhancing key traits while providing a biological safeguard for intellectual property. By making hybrid replication difficult without proprietary parent lines, these strategies offer a sustainable solution to IP protection, encouraging innovation, long-term productivity, and profitability in the aquaculture industry.

1. Introduction

Aquaculture, encompassing the farming of fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and aquatic plants, is a cornerstone of global food security [1]. With wild fish stocks declining and the global population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050, aquaculture must expand sustainably to meet rising demand. Genetic improvement through selective breeding is critical to this goal [2,3]. Among breeding strategies, line breeding and line hybridization stand out, drawing inspiration from their success in chicken [4] and plant breeding [5]. The genetic improvement of aquaculture species can be accelerated through marker selection (MAS) [6], genomic selection (GS) [3], and genome editing (GE) [7,8]. MAS identifies genetic markers linked to desirable traits, enabling more efficient broodstock selection. GS utilizes genome-wide markers and predictive models to enhance selection accuracy, increasing genetic gain for traits like growth, disease resistance, and stress tolerance. Genome editing, particularly with CRISPR-Cas9 [9], allows precise modifications of key genes to be made to rapidly introduce beneficial traits, such as sterility, enhanced growth, or improved feed efficiency [7,8]. Integrating these technologies can revolutionize aquaculture breeding, reducing generation intervals and enhancing sustainability.
However, as these advanced breeding technologies become more widely adopted, it is essential to protect the intellectual property (IP) associated with aquaculture breeding programs. Developing genetically improved lines requires substantial investment in research, infrastructure, and expertise [10]. Without robust IP protection, the unauthorized use of proprietary genetic lines could undermine the competitive advantage of breeding companies and research institutions. Patents, trademarks, and genetic resource management strategies can help safeguard innovations, ensuring that breeders are incentivized to continue developing superior strains [11,12]. Additionally, clear legal frameworks and international agreements are needed to regulate the sharing and commercialization of improved genetic resources while balancing innovation with accessibility for small-scale and emerging aquaculture enterprises. This perspective paper explores the application of line breeding and hybridization between lines in aquaculture, focusing on their contributions to genetic enhancement, economic viability, and IP protection—a pressing challenge in an industry where innovations are easily disseminated.

2. Line Breeding and Line Hybridization: Lessons from Agriculture

Line breeding and line hybridization are well established in agriculture [4,5], offering valuable lessons for aquaculture. Line breeding involves mating closely related individuals within a genetic line to fix desirable traits, such as disease resistance, by increasing genetic uniformity [10]. For example, in chickens, this has produced lines with consistent egg-laying efficiency [4] (Table 1). In contrast, line hybridization crosses distinct genetic lines to exploit hybrid vigor (heterosis), where offspring outperform their parents in traits like growth or resilience [5]. In maize, hybridization has boosted yields by up to 15% [13] (Table 2).
Aquaculture species—such as salmon [14], tilapia [15], catfish [16], shrimps [17], and Asian seabass [18]—exhibit rich genetic diversity, making them ideal candidates for these techniques. For instance, hybridization in tilapia improved growth rates by 20% over original lines [15], demonstrating their potential to transform the industry. In Asian seabass, three distinct lines were bred for enhanced growth, disease resistance [19], and increased omega-3 content [19]. Recent advancements in MAS, GS, and GE can further enhance genetic improvement in both line and hybrid breeding. Comprehensive details on these technologies are available in previously published review papers [2,3,7,9].
Table 1. Plant species where line breeding and line hybridization have been employed for large-scale production *.
Table 1. Plant species where line breeding and line hybridization have been employed for large-scale production *.
Plant SpeciesType of Breeding UsedKey Traits ImprovedExamples of Cultivars/Hybrids
Maize (Zea mays)Line HybridizationYield, pest resistance, drought toleranceHybrid maize (e.g., Pioneer’s single-cross hybrids)
Rice (Oryza sativa)Line Breeding and HybridizationPest resistance, grain yield, flood toleranceIR8 (Green Revolution), hybrid rice varieties
Cotton (Gossypium spp.)Line Breeding and HybridizationFiber quality, pest resistance (Bt cotton)Bollgard® Bt cotton hybrids
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)Line HybridizationShelf-life, disease resistance, flavorHybrid tomatoes (e.g., Better Boy, Big Beef)
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor)Line HybridizationDrought resistance, yieldHybrid sorghum varieties
Canola (Brassica napus)Line HybridizationOil content, herbicide toleranceRoundup Ready® canola hybrids
Sunflower (Helianthus annuus)Line HybridizationOil content, disease resistanceHybrid sunflower varieties
Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.)Line HybridizationSugar content, disease resistanceCo varieties (e.g., Co 86032)
Millet (Pennisetum glaucum)Line HybridizationDrought tolerance, yieldHybrid pearl millet varieties
Carrot (Daucus carota)Line HybridizationRoot shape, color, disease resistanceNantes-type hybrid carrots
Cucumber (Cucumis sativus)Line HybridizationDisease resistance, fruit qualityHybrid cucumber varieties
Onion (Allium cepa)Line HybridizationBulb size, storage life, disease resistanceHybrid onions (e.g., Candy, Sweet Spanish)
Brinjal/Eggplant (Solanum melongena)Line HybridizationYield, pest resistanceHybrid eggplant varieties
Capsicum/Chili Pepper (Capsicum spp.)Line HybridizationPungency, color, disease resistanceHybrid pepper varieties
Cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata)Line HybridizationHead compactness, disease resistanceHybrid cabbage varieties
* Sources: [13,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34].
Table 2. Major poultry, livestock, and fish species where line breeding and line hybridization have been employed for large-scale production *.
Table 2. Major poultry, livestock, and fish species where line breeding and line hybridization have been employed for large-scale production *.
SpeciesType of Breeding UsedKey Traits ImprovedExamples of Lines/Hybrids
Chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus)Line Breeding and HybridizationGrowth rate, egg production, feed efficiency, disease resistanceBroiler hybrids (e.g., Ross 308, Cobb 500), layer hybrids (e.g., Hy-Line, ISA Brown)
Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo)Line HybridizationGrowth rate, meat yield, feed efficiencyBroad Breasted White hybrids
Duck (Anas platyrhynchos)Line Breeding and HybridizationGrowth rate, egg production, disease resistancePekin duck hybrids (e.g., Cherry Valley)
Cattle (Bos taurus/Bos indicus)Line Breeding and HybridizationMilk yield, meat quality, disease resistanceHolstein-Friesian (dairy), Angus–Hereford crosses (beef), Brahman crossbreeds
Pig (Sus scrofa domesticus)Line Breeding and HybridizationGrowth rate, meat quality, litter sizeLarge White × Landrace hybrids, Duroc terminal sires
Sheep (Ovis aries)Line Breeding and HybridizationWool quality, meat production, reproductive efficiencyMerino (wool), Suffolk × Dorset crosses (meat)
Asian Seabass (Lates calcarifer)Line Breeding and HybridizationGrowth rate, omega-3 content, disease resistanceSelected lines from genetic improvement programs
Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.)Line Breeding and HybridizationGrowth rate, salinity tolerance, disease resistanceGenetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT)
Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar)Line Breeding and HybridizationGrowth rate, disease resistance, omega-3 contentAquaBounty’s fast-growing salmon, Mowi’s hybrid strains
Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)Line Breeding and HybridizationGrowth rate, disease resistanceSteelhead hybrids, all-female triploid trout
Shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei)Line BreedingGrowth rate, disease resistance, salinity toleranceSpecific Pathogen-Free (SPF) lines
* Sources: [4,14,15,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44].

3. Breeding for Genetic Improvement: A Costly but Rewarding Endeavor

Genetic improvement in aquaculture is a meticulous process requiring advanced tools and expertise. It begins with identifying diverse wild stocks or populations with desirable traits, followed by phenotyping and genotyping to select superior individuals [10,42]. Line breeding then fixes these traits over generations, while hybridization combines them for optimal performance [10]. This process is time-intensive—often spanning 5–10 years or even longer—and expensive, with costs for facilities, staff, and biotechnology running into millions of dollars [45,46]. For example, a breeding program for Asian seabass has invested over a million dollars since 2004 [42]. Yet, the rewards are significant: improved lines can increase yields by 10–30%, reduce feed costs, and enhance sustainability by minimizing disease losses [2].

4. Line Breeding and Hybridization as IP Protection Strategies

Protecting IP is vital to incentivize innovation in aquaculture, yet traditional methods like the use of patents face hurdles. Genetic material often lacks the novelty required for patents due to its natural origins, and enforcement is challenging as fish reproduce and disperse freely [12]. For instance, a patented salmon strain in Norway was reproduced without authorization within two years due to uncontrolled breeding [11].
Line hybridization offers a biological alternative. By crossing two distinct, proprietary lines, breeders create hybrids with superior traits—e.g., Asian seabass hybrids with 25% faster growth and higher omega-3 content [42]. Replicating these hybrids requires both parent lines, which remain under the breeder’s control, making reverse-engineering impractical. This mirrors strategies in maize, where hybrid seeds dominate markets due to their IP-protected complexity [47].
Two-line hybridization offers a balance between cost and efficiency by requiring fewer resources than four-line systems, which, although more resource-intensive, enhance genetic improvement by maintaining and crossing multiple distinct parental lines to maximize trait diversity (see Figure 1). While effective, hybridization is not foolproof—competitors could still develop similar lines over time—and inbreeding depression in line breeding risks reducing vigor if not managed carefully [48]. To mitigate this, line breeding programs should incorporate careful pedigree tracking and the periodic introduction of genetic diversity to maintain vigor and overall fitness.

5. Legal Frameworks and International Agreements

Clear legal frameworks and international agreements are essential for the fair and transparent sharing of genetic resources in aquaculture line breeding and hybridization. As aquaculture continues to expand globally, the movement and use of valuable genetic materials—such as broodstock, gametes, and improved lines—have become increasingly common across borders. Without clear legal mechanisms, there is a risk of biopiracy, unfair benefit distribution, and disputes over intellectual property rights. International frameworks like the Nagoya Protocol [49] provide guidelines for the access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources, but their application to aquatic species, especially hybrids and selectively bred lines, remains inconsistent and underdeveloped. A harmonized legal approach is crucial to ensure that both provider and user countries can participate in and benefit from genetic advancements. This promotes trust, encourages investment in breeding programs, and supports conservation efforts by valuing genetic diversity. Ultimately, strong legal and policy structures foster sustainable and equitable innovation in aquaculture breeding.

6. Conclusions

Line breeding and line hybridization, in combination with novel technologies including marker-assisted selection, genomic selection, and genome editing, are indispensable for advancing aquaculture, enhancing traits like growth and resilience while providing a natural shield for IP. Adapted from agriculture, these techniques address the industry’s need for sustainable productivity amid rising global demand. Though costly and time-consuming, their benefits—yield gains, cost savings, and ecological resilience—far outweigh the investment. Traditional IP protections falter in aquaculture, but hybridization’s genetic complexity offers a robust, enforceable safeguard, as demonstrated in species like Asian seabass and tilapia. Despite risks like inbreeding depression, careful management ensures these strategies drive the industry’s growth and profitability, securing innovations for a sustainable future.

Funding

This research was funded by the internal fund (5020) from Temasek Life Sciences Laboratory, Singapore.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to all the authors whose papers were cited in this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
IPIntellectual property
MASMarker-assisted selection
GSGenomic selection
GEGenome editing

References

  1. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  2. Houston, R.D.; Bean, T.P.; Macqueen, D.J.; Gundappa, M.K.; Jin, Y.H.; Jenkins, T.L.; Selly, S.L.C.; Martin, S.A.; Stevens, J.R.; Santos, E.M. Harnessing genomics to fast-track genetic improvement in aquaculture. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2020, 21, 389–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Yanez, J.M.; Barria, A.; Lopez, M.E.; Moen, T.; Garcia, B.F.; Yoshida, G.M.; Xu, P. Genome-wide association and genomic selection in aquaculture. Rev. Aquac. 2023, 15, 645–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tixier-Boichard, M.; Leenstra, F.; Flock, D.; Hocking, P.; Weigend, S. A century of poultry genetics. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2012, 68, 307–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Labroo, M.R.; Studer, A.J.; Rutkoski, J.E. Heterosis and hybrid crop breeding: A multidisciplinary review. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 643761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yue, G.H. Recent advances of genome mapping and marker-assisted selection in aquaculture. Fish Fish. 2014, 15, 376–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, Z.; Yu, Y.; Tay, Y.X.; Yue, G.H. Genome editing and its applications in genetic improvement in aquaculture. Rev. Aquac. 2022, 14, 178–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yang, Z.T.; Fu, G.H.; Lee, M.; Yeo, S.; Yue, G.H. Genes for editing to improve economic traits in aquaculture fish species. Aquac. Fish. 2025, 10, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mali, P.; Yang, L.; Esvelt, K.M.; Aach, J.; Guell, M.; DiCarlo, J.E.; Norville, J.E.; Church, G.M. RNA-guided human genome engineering via Cas9. Science 2013, 339, 823–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gjedrem, T. Selection and Breeding Programs in Aquaculture; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2005; Volume 2005. [Google Scholar]
  11. Castle, D. The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Biotechnology Innovation; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  12. Dutfield, G. Seven Tales of a Patent. In Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries: A Twentieth Century History; Dutfield, G., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 13–33. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hallauer, A.R.; Carena, M.J. Maize. In Cereals; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009; pp. 3–98. [Google Scholar]
  14. Glover, K.A.; Otterå, H.; Olsen, R.E.; Slinde, E.; Taranger, G.L.; Skaala, Ø. A comparison of farmed, wild and hybrid Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) reared under farming conditions. Aquaculture 2009, 286, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ponzoni, R.W.; Nguyen, N.H.; Khaw, H.L.; Hamzah, A.; Bakar, K.R.A.; Yee, H.Y. Genetic improvement of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) with special reference to the work conducted by the WorldFish Center with the GIFT strain. Rev. Aquac. 2011, 3, 27–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dunham, R.A.; Masser, M.P. Production of Hybrid Catfish; Southern Regional Aquaculture Center: Stoneville, MS, USA, 2012; Volume 436, pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhang, Z.; Lu, C.K.; Lin, K.B.; You, W.W.; Yang, Z.W. Genetic diversity and genetic structure among four selected strains of whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) using SSR markers. Fishes 2023, 8, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yue, G.H.; Zhu, Z.Y.; Lo, L.C.; Wang, C.M.; Lin, G.; Feng, F.; Pang, H.Y.; Li, J.; Gong, P.; Liu, H.M. Genetic variation and population structure of Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer) in the Asia-Pacific region. Aquaculture 2009, 293, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yue, G.H.; Guo, C.J. Strategies for managing major diseases in Asian seabass aquaculture. Anim. Dis. 2025, 5, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zheng, X.; Wei, F.; Cheng, C.; Qian, Q. A historical review of hybrid rice breeding. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2024, 66, 532–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rauf, S.; Shehzad, M.; Al-Khayri, J.M.; Imran, H.M.; Noorka, I.R. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) breeding strategies. Adv. Plant Breed. Strateg. Ind. Food Crops 2019, 6, 29–59. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sharma, M.; Adarsh, M.; Kumari, P.; Thakur, M.; Kumar, R.; Sharma, R.; Gautam, N. Hybrid breeding in tomato. Int. J. Farm Sci. 2015, 5, 233–250. [Google Scholar]
  23. Nguyen, H.T. Sorghum improvement: Past achievements and future prospects. In Crop Improvement: Challenges in the Twenty-First Century; Kang, M.S., Ed.; Food Products Press: New York, NY, USA, 2024; pp. 109–139. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ton, L.B.; Neik, T.X.; Batley, J. The use of genetic and gene technologies in shaping modern rapeseed cultivars (Brassica napus L.). Genes 2020, 11, 1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Meena, H.; Sujatha, M. Sunflower breeding. In Fundamentals of Field Crop Breeding; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 971–1008. [Google Scholar]
  26. Yeo, S.; Lee, M.; Wang, L.; Endah, S.; Alhuda, N.; Yue, G. Microsatellite analysis of genetic diversity and relationships in 1027 sugarcane accessions. Sugar Tech 2023, 25, 1082–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, L.; Yeo, S.; Lee, M.; Endah, S.; Alhuda, N.; Yue, G. Combination of GWAS and F ST-based approaches identified loci associated with economic traits in sugarcane. Mol. Genet. Genom. 2023, 298, 1107–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Srivastava, R.K.; Bollam, S.; Pujarula, V.; Pusuluri, M.; Singh, R.B.; Potupureddi, G.; Gupta, R. Exploitation of heterosis in pearl millet: A review. Plants 2020, 9, 807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kiełkowska, A.; Kiszczak, W. History and current status of haploidization in carrot (Daucus carota L.). Agronomy 2023, 13, 676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jat, G.S.; Behera, T.K.; Lata, S.; Kumar, S. Classical genetics and traditional breeding in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). In Cucumber Economic Values and Its Cultivation and Breeding; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021; pp. 201–215. [Google Scholar]
  31. Havey, M.J. Onion breeding. Plant Breed. Rev. 2018, 42, 39–85. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mishra, P.; Tiwari, S.K.; Tiwari, K.N. Genetic improvement of eggplant: Perspectives and challenges. Genet. Eng. Crop Plants Food Health Secur. 2024, 1, 123–149. [Google Scholar]
  33. Barboza, G.E.; García, C.C.; de Bem Bianchetti, L.; Romero, M.V.; Scaldaferro, M. Monograph of wild and cultivated chili peppers (Capsicum L., Solanaceae). PhytoKeys 2022, 200, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Parmar, S.S.; Ravindra, I.H.; Kumar, R. Accelerated Approaches for Cabbage Improvement. In Recent Trends in Plant Breeding and Genetic Improvement; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  35. McCarthy, E.M. Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lorenz, F.; Asmundson, V.; Wilson, N. Turkey hybrids: (Meleagris ocellata × Meleagris gallopaVo). J. Hered. 1956, 47, 143–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Liu, M.H.; Churchil, R.R. Duck genetics and breeding. In Duck Production and Management Strategies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; pp. 97–156. [Google Scholar]
  38. Basiel, B.L.; Felix, T.L. Board invited review: Crossbreeding beef× dairy cattle for the modern beef production system. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2022, 6, txac025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mekonnen, T.; Tadesse, Y.; Meseret, S. Genetic improvement strategy of indigenous cattle breeds: Effect of cattle crossbreeding program in production performances. J. Appl. Life Sci. Int. 2020, 23, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Craft, W. Fifty years of progress in swine breeding. J. Anim. Sci. 1958, 17, 960–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rasali, D.; Shrestha, J.; Crow, G. Development of composite sheep breeds in the world: A review. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 86, 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yue, G.; Wang, L.; Sun, F.; Yang, Z.; Wong, J.; Wen, Y.; Pang, H.; Lee, M.; Yeo, S.; Liang, B. Improving growth, omega-3 contents, and disease resistance of Asian seabass: Status of a 20-year family-based breeding program. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2024, 34, 91–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Moore, M.E.; Goetz, F.A.; Van Doornik, D.M.; Tezak, E.P.; Quinn, T.P.; Reyes-Tomassini, J.J.; Berejikian, B.A. Early marine migration patterns of wild coastal cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and their hybrids. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e12881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alday-Sanz, V.; Brock, J.; Flegel, T.W.; McIntosh, R.; Bondad-Reantaso, M.G.; Salazar, M.; Subasinghe, R. Facts, truths and myths about SPF shrimp in Aquaculture. Rev. Aquac. 2020, 12, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Janssen, K.; Saatkamp, H.; Komen, H. Cost-benefit analysis of aquaculture breeding programs. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2018, 50, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wong, J.; Sun, F.; Wang, L.; Yang, Z.; Wen, Y.; Pang, H.; Lee, M.; Yeo, S.; Liang, B.; Chen, K. Changes in genetic diversity of Asian seabass in a 20-year breeding program. Aquaculture 2023, 575, 739738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Duvick, D.N. Biotechnology in the 1930s: The development of hybrid maize. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2001, 2, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Saura, M.; Caballero, A.; Santiago, E.; Fernández, A.; Morales-González, E.; Fernández, J.; Cabaleiro, S.; Millán, A.; Martínez, P.; Palaiokostas, C. Estimates of recent and historical effective population size in turbot, seabream, seabass and carp selective breeding programmes. Genet. Sel. Evol. 2021, 53, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Buck, M.; Hamilton, C. The Nagoya Protocol on access to genetic resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Rev. Eur. Community Int. Environ. Law 2011, 20, 47–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fishes 10 00220 g001
Figure 1. A roadmap of line breeding and hybrid production in aquaculture, featuring a nucleus population, four economic trait lines, and their hybridization pathways. Line breeding and line hybridization enhance desirable traits and protect the intellectual property (IP) tied to specific breeding lines. Line breeding involves mating genetically related animals to concentrate on traits like growth, disease resistance, or feed efficiency, creating unique genetic lines. These lines are protected as trade secrets rather than patents since genetic details are not easily disclosed. Breeding centers rarely sell parent lines, including nucleus and lines (i.e., L1, L2, L3 and L4), offering hybrid offspring instead. These hybrids perform well but do not breed true, producing variable, often inferior F2 generations, discouraging farmers from breeding their own stock. Multi-line crossbreeding (e.g., four-line hybridization) adds complexity, making it hard for competitors to replicate. Breeding centers can also use licensing agreements to restrict breeding, specifying that animals are for production only. Certainly, genetic fingerprinting for identifying proprietary lines can also be employed, aiding legal defense against unauthorized use.
Figure 1. A roadmap of line breeding and hybrid production in aquaculture, featuring a nucleus population, four economic trait lines, and their hybridization pathways. Line breeding and line hybridization enhance desirable traits and protect the intellectual property (IP) tied to specific breeding lines. Line breeding involves mating genetically related animals to concentrate on traits like growth, disease resistance, or feed efficiency, creating unique genetic lines. These lines are protected as trade secrets rather than patents since genetic details are not easily disclosed. Breeding centers rarely sell parent lines, including nucleus and lines (i.e., L1, L2, L3 and L4), offering hybrid offspring instead. These hybrids perform well but do not breed true, producing variable, often inferior F2 generations, discouraging farmers from breeding their own stock. Multi-line crossbreeding (e.g., four-line hybridization) adds complexity, making it hard for competitors to replicate. Breeding centers can also use licensing agreements to restrict breeding, specifying that animals are for production only. Certainly, genetic fingerprinting for identifying proprietary lines can also be employed, aiding legal defense against unauthorized use.
Fishes 10 00220 g001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Yue, G.H. Championing Line Breeding and Hybridization in Aquaculture to Safeguard Intellectual Property. Fishes 2025, 10, 220. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10050220

AMA Style

Yue GH. Championing Line Breeding and Hybridization in Aquaculture to Safeguard Intellectual Property. Fishes. 2025; 10(5):220. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10050220

Chicago/Turabian Style

Yue, Gen Hua. 2025. "Championing Line Breeding and Hybridization in Aquaculture to Safeguard Intellectual Property" Fishes 10, no. 5: 220. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10050220

APA Style

Yue, G. H. (2025). Championing Line Breeding and Hybridization in Aquaculture to Safeguard Intellectual Property. Fishes, 10(5), 220. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes10050220

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop