Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26350495›Full record

ArticleTAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik2015

Implications of using genomic prediction within a high-density SNP dataset to predict DUS traits in barley.

Huw Jones, Ian Mackay

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 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. Article
  13. Article
  14. Insights into deployment of DNA markers in plant variety protection and registration.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
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

2 authors.

Huw JonesNIAB, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0LE, UK. huw.jones@niab.com.
Ian MackayNIAB, Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0LE, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

key messageAlternative methods for genomic prediction of traits and trait differences are compared and recommendations made. We make recommendations for implementing methods in the context of DUS testing. High-throughput genotyping provides an opportunity to explore the application of genotypes in predicting plant phenotypes. We use a genome-wide prediction model to estimate the contribution of all loci and sum over multiple minor effects to predict traits. A potential use is in plant variety protection to discriminate among varieties on distinctness. We investigate this use with alternate scenarios in a set of 431 winter and spring barley varieties, with trait data from UK DUS trials comprising 28 characteristics, together with SNP genotype data. Firstly, each trait is predicted from genotypes by ridge regression with discrimination among varieties using predicted traits. Secondly, squared trait differences between each pair of varieties are regressed on genetic distances between each variety by ridge regression, with discrimination among varieties using the predicted squared trait differences directly. This latter approach is analogous to the use of phenotype and marker differences introduced to human genetic linkage analysis by Haseman and Elston and to the analysis of heritability in natural populations of plants by Ritland. We compare correlations between methods, both trait by trait and summarised across all traits. Our results show wide variation among correlations for each trait. However, the aggregate distances calculated from values predicted by genotypes show higher correlations with distances calculated from measured values than any previously reported. We discuss the applicability of these results to implementation of UPOV Model 2 in DUS testing and suggest 'success criteria' that should be considered by testing authorities seeking to implement UPOV Model 2.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantPolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait, HeritableGenetic MarkersGenomicsGenotypeHordeumModels, GeneticPhenotypeGenetic Markers

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.