Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25407079›Full record

ArticleHeredity2015

Genomic prediction in biparental tropical maize populations in water-stressed and well-watered environments using low-density and GBS SNPs.

X Zhang, P Pérez-Rodríguez, K Semagn, Y Beyene, R Babu, M A López-Cruz, F San Vicente, M Olsen, E Buckler, J-L Jannink and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heredity, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

97 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Exploiting genomic tools for genetic dissection and improving the resistance to Fusarium stalk rot in tropical maize.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

X ZhangInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico, Mexico.
P Pérez-RodríguezColegio de Postgraduados, Montecillo, Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
K SemagnInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Nairobi, Kenya.
Y BeyeneInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Nairobi, Kenya.
R BabuCIMMYT-India, c/o ICRISAT, Andhra Pradesh, India.
M A López-CruzInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico, Mexico.
F San VicenteInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico, Mexico.
M OlsenInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico, Mexico.
E BucklerUSDA Agricultural Research Service, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
J-L JanninkUSDA Agricultural Research Service, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
B M PrasannaInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Nairobi, Kenya.
J CrossaInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Mexico, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the most important applications of genomic selection in maize breeding is to predict and identify the best untested lines from biparental populations, when the training and validation sets are derived from the same cross. Nineteen tropical maize biparental populations evaluated in multienvironment trials were used in this study to assess prediction accuracy of different quantitative traits using low-density (~200 markers) and genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), respectively. An extension of the Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Predictor that incorporates genotype × environment (GE) interaction was used to predict genotypic values; cross-validation methods were applied to quantify prediction accuracy. Our results showed that: (1) low-density SNPs (~200 markers) were largely sufficient to get good prediction in biparental maize populations for simple traits with moderate-to-high heritability, but GBS outperformed low-density SNPs for complex traits and simple traits evaluated under stress conditions with low-to-moderate heritability; (2) heritability and genetic architecture of target traits affected prediction performance, prediction accuracy of complex traits (grain yield) were consistently lower than those of simple traits (anthesis date and plant height) and prediction accuracy under stress conditions was consistently lower and more variable than under well-watered conditions for all the target traits because of their poor heritability under stress conditions; and (3) the prediction accuracy of GE models was found to be superior to that of non-GE models for complex traits and marginal for simple traits.

Indexed as

Polymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait, HeritableBreedingGene-Environment InteractionGenomicsGenotypeModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalPhenotypeStress, PhysiologicalWaterZea maysWater

Identifiers

PMID25407079
PMCPMC4815582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.