Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27515254›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2016

Performance of genomic prediction within and across generations in maritime pine.

Jérôme Bartholomé, Joost Van Heerwaarden, Fikret Isik, Christophe Boury, Marjorie Vidal, Christophe Plomion, Laurent Bouffier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing 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

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Phenomics, genomics of oil palm (Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Jérôme BartholoméBIOGECO, INRA, Univ. Bordeaux, 33610, Cestas, France.ORCID 0000-0002-0855-3828
Joost Van HeerwaardenBiometris, Wageningen University and Research Centre, NL-6700 AC, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Fikret IsikDepartment of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Christophe BouryBIOGECO, INRA, Univ. Bordeaux, 33610, Cestas, France.
Marjorie VidalBIOGECO, INRA, Univ. Bordeaux, 33610, Cestas, France.
Christophe PlomionBIOGECO, INRA, Univ. Bordeaux, 33610, Cestas, France.
Laurent BouffierBIOGECO, INRA, Univ. Bordeaux, 33610, Cestas, France. bouffier@pierroton.inra.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic selection (GS) is a promising approach for decreasing breeding cycle length in forest trees. Assessment of progeny performance and of the prediction accuracy of GS models over generations is therefore a key issue.

resultsA reference population of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) with an estimated effective inbreeding population size (status number) of 25 was first selected with simulated data. This reference population (n = 818) covered three generations (G0, G1 and G2) and was genotyped with 4436 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. We evaluated the effects on prediction accuracy of both the relatedness between the calibration and validation sets and validation on the basis of progeny performance. Pedigree-based (best linear unbiased prediction, ABLUP) and marker-based (genomic BLUP and Bayesian LASSO) models were used to predict breeding values for three different traits: circumference, height and stem straightness. On average, the ABLUP model outperformed genomic prediction models, with a maximum difference in prediction accuracies of 0.12, depending on the trait and the validation method. A mean difference in prediction accuracy of 0.17 was found between validation methods differing in terms of relatedness. Including the progenitors in the calibration set reduced this difference in prediction accuracy to 0.03. When only genotypes from the G0 and G1 generations were used in the calibration set and genotypes from G2 were used in the validation set (progeny validation), prediction accuracies ranged from 0.70 to 0.85.

conclusionsThis study suggests that the training of prediction models on parental populations can predict the genetic merit of the progeny with high accuracy: an encouraging result for the implementation of GS in the maritime pine breeding program.

Indexed as

Genome, PlantModels, GeneticQuantitative Trait, HeritableBayes TheoremGenetic MarkersGenotypePhenotypePinusPlant BreedingPolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait LociSelection, GeneticGenetic MarkersGenomic selectionGrowthMultiple generationsPinus pinasterProgeny validationRelatednessStem straightness

Identifiers

PMID27515254
PMCPMC4981999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.