PREreview of Rare Genetic Traits in Plants and Animals and How Their Preservation Can Help Humanity

Short summary of the research and contribution to the field

This review discusses the importance of rare genetic traits in plants and animals as reservoirs of adaptive potential under climate change, environmental stress, disease pressure, and biodiversity loss. The manuscript emphasizes that crop wild relatives, landraces, indigenous varieties, and genetically diverse animal populations may preserve low-frequency traits that support drought tolerance, salinity tolerance, disease resistance, stress resilience, ecological stability, and future biomedical or technological innovation.

The work contributes to the field by bringing together plant conservation genetics, animal genetic diversity, biotechnology, medicine, and conservation strategies into a broad narrative. The manuscript is especially valuable in highlighting that biodiversity conservation should not focus only on species counts, but also on within-species genetic diversity, including rare alleles that may become important under future environmental conditions.

Positive feedback / strengths

1. Important and timely topic. The manuscript addresses a highly relevant issue: the loss of genetic diversity under industrial agriculture, climate change, habitat loss, and species decline.

2. Good integration of plant and animal examples. The review covers both plant genetic resources, such as crop wild relatives and landraces, and animal traits relevant to adaptation, medicine, and biotechnology.

3. Useful figures and examples. Figure 1 on page 4 gives helpful visual examples of Aegilops tauschii, Oryza rufipogon, and Solanum pimpinellifolium as crop wild relatives. These examples support the discussion of rare plant alleles for rust resistance, drought tolerance, salinity tolerance, and disease resistance.

4. Practical discussion of conservation strategies. The manuscript discusses in situ conservation, ex situ conservation, gene banks, cryopreservation, genetic rescue, cloning, marker-assisted selection, genomic selection, and CRISPR-based strategies.

5. Broad table of animal traits with biomedical relevance. Table 1 on pages 9–11 is a useful feature because it summarizes rare or unique animal traits, their biological function, and possible applications in medicine or technology, including tardigrade Dsup, naked mole-rat HAS2, shark VNAR antibodies, and antifreeze proteins.

Major issues

1. The manuscript needs a clearer definition of “rare genetic trait”

The manuscript uses terms such as rare genetic trait, rare allele, low-frequency allele, unique trait, adaptive trait, and exceptional trait somewhat interchangeably. These terms overlap, but they are not identical.

Suggested improvement: The authors should define early and consistently whether “rare genetic traits” refers to:

• low-frequency alleles within a population

• rare phenotypes

• traits found only in specific species

• locally adapted alleles

• traits lost during domestication

• traits that are rare globally but common in a local population

This distinction matters because a trait such as antifreeze proteins in Antarctic organisms is not the same type of “rare trait” as a low-frequency drought-tolerance allele in rice landraces.

2. The review would benefit from a more systematic literature-review method

The manuscript is presented as a review, but the search and selection strategy are not clearly described. Readers cannot easily determine how the cited examples were selected, whether the review is comprehensive, or whether important counterexamples were excluded.

Suggested improvement: Add a short Methods / Literature Search Strategy section describing:

• databases searched

• keywords used

• date range

• inclusion and exclusion criteria

• how plant and animal examples were selected

• whether peer-reviewed studies, reviews, databases, or reports were included

• how evidence quality was assessed

This would make the review more rigorous and transparent.

3. Some claims need more precise evidence and careful wording

Several statements are biologically plausible but are written broadly, such as rare alleles being permanently unrecoverable, elite cultivars losing many stress traits, or modern crops requiring inputs because resistance genes were lost. These are important claims, but they require precise evidence and context.

Suggested improvement: The authors should avoid broad generalizations and specify:

• which species or crop system the claim applies to

• whether the statement refers to allele loss, reduced allele frequency, reduced expression, or reduced phenotypic diversity

• whether the evidence is genomic, phenotypic, historical, or observational

• whether there are exceptions

For example, some modern breeding programs actively introgress resistance alleles from wild relatives, so the manuscript should balance the criticism of modern agriculture with examples of successful conservation-aware breeding.

4. Plant and animal sections are uneven in depth and structure

The plant section is relatively detailed, with crop wild relatives, landraces, specific genes, and stress pathways. The animal section is broader and moves quickly from genetic mechanisms to extinction, medicine, and technology.

Suggested improvement: The animal section should be organized more like the plant section, for example:

• sources of rare animal genetic traits

• adaptive traits under climate change

• disease resistance and immune traits

• extreme-environment traits

• examples of genetic erosion in animal populations

• conservation strategies and limitations

This would make the manuscript more balanced.

5. The table of animal traits needs stronger verification and refinement

Table 1 is useful, but some entries appear oversimplified or may need more careful wording. For example, linking specific “genes” directly to complex traits such as kangaroo rat jumping, Greenland shark longevity, or collagen stability may require more cautious phrasing. Some rows may represent species-level adaptations or gene families rather than clearly validated rare alleles.

Suggested improvement: For each table entry, add columns such as:

• evidence level: genomic, physiological, experimental, or speculative

• whether the trait is directly linked to a known gene

• whether biomedical use is demonstrated, experimental, or hypothetical

• key supporting reference

• conservation relevance

This would prevent the table from overclaiming translational applications.

6. The manuscript should better distinguish conservation of traits from conservation of species

At several points, the paper discusses preserving rare traits, conserving species, maintaining ecosystems, and preventing extinction. These are related but not identical goals.

Suggested improvement: Add a conceptual framework explaining that conservation can occur at multiple levels:

• allele / variant

• genotype

• population

• breed / landrace

• species

• ecosystem

This would help clarify why preserving rare genetic traits may require different strategies than preserving species numbers alone.

7. Conservation strategies should include limitations, risks, and governance issues

The manuscript discusses cloning, CRISPR, genetic rescue, gene banks, in situ and ex situ conservation. However, the limitations and governance implications need deeper discussion.

Suggested improvement: The authors should expand discussion of:

• outbreeding depression

• genetic homogenization

• loss of local adaptation

• ethical concerns in animal cloning

• ecological risks of gene editing

• access and benefit sharing

• indigenous/local community rights

• seed sovereignty

• long-term maintenance cost of gene banks

• prioritization of which rare alleles to conserve

This would make the conservation recommendations more realistic and policy-relevant.

8. The manuscript should avoid implying that biotechnology can fully replace ecosystem-based conservation

The review appropriately mentions biotechnology, CRISPR, cloning, and cryopreservation, but it should be clearer that these are supporting tools, not substitutes for habitat protection, population connectivity, and sustainable agricultural systems.

Suggested improvement: Add a paragraph emphasizing that biotechnology can preserve or recover specific genetic material, but it cannot fully recreate ecological interactions, ongoing natural selection, microbial associations, behavior, or population-level adaptive processes.

Minor issues

1. Improve grammar and sentence structure. Several sentences are long or awkwardly phrased. A language edit would improve clarity and professional tone.

2. Use consistent terminology. Use either “in situ” and “ex situ” consistently, and correct “in site” to “in situ.”

3. Fix formatting of figures and captions. Some figure captions are long and include licensing information that may be better moved to acknowledgments or figure notes.

4. Improve Table 1 readability. The table is useful but visually dense. Shorter entries or grouping by application area—cryobiology, aging, hypoxia, immune defense, sensory biology—would make it easier to read.

5. Clarify plant gene examples. The section on DREB/CBF, NAC, HSF, HKT1;5, NHX, SUB1A, NLR, Cf, and Pto genes would benefit from a summary table linking gene class → stress type → source population → conservation relevance.

6. Clarify “rare” versus “unique.” Traits like tardigrade radiation tolerance or electric eel bioelectricity may be unique species adaptations, but not necessarily low-frequency alleles within a species.

7. Avoid overstatement of medical applications. Some applications are early-stage or speculative. The wording should separate demonstrated biomedical use from potential future applications.

8. Add policy examples. The paper would be stronger if it mentioned international frameworks such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, FAO genetic-resource programs, or crop/livestock gene bank networks.

9. Clarify whether this is a narrative review. Since the manuscript does not appear systematic, it should be labeled as a narrative review unless a formal search strategy is added.

10. Strengthen the conclusion. The conclusion would be more actionable if it ended with specific recommendations for researchers, breeders, conservationists, and policymakers.

Overall assessment

This is a valuable and accessible review on the importance of rare genetic traits in plants and animals for climate resilience, biodiversity conservation, agriculture, medicine, and biotechnology. The manuscript’s main strength is its broad interdisciplinary framing and its emphasis that genetic diversity is a critical but often underappreciated layer of biodiversity.

The most important improvements would be to define “rare genetic traits” more precisely, strengthen the literature-review methodology, verify and refine the animal trait table, balance the plant and animal sections, and add a more critical discussion of conservation strategy limitations. With these revisions, the manuscript would provide a clearer and more scientifically rigorous overview of why rare genetic traits matter and how they can be responsibly preserved for future resilience and human benefit.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they used generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.