ArticleBMC genomics2016
Performance of genomic prediction within and across generations in maritime pine.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic selection validated across two generations of loblolly pine breeding.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Multivariate models improve accuracy of genomic prediction for spring frost tolerance in Norway spruce.The plant genome · 2025Article
- Application and development prospect of genomic selection breeding in coniferous trees.Planta · 2025Review
- Low-input breeding potential in stone pine, a multipurpose forest tree with low genome diversity.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- Forest tree breeding using genomic Markov causal models: a new approach to genomic tree breeding improvement.Heredity · 2025Article
- Integrating environmental gradients into breeding: application of genomic reactions norms in a perennial species.Heredity · 2024Article
- Genomic selection in forest trees comes to life: unraveling its potential in an advanced four-generationFrontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Realized genomic selection across generations in a reciprocal recurrent selection breeding program ofFrontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Article
- Prediction ability of genome-wide markers in Pinus taeda L. within and between population is affected by relatedness to the training population and trait genetic architecture.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Identifying and testing marker-trait associations for growth and phenology in three pine species: Implications for genomic prediction.Evolutionary applications · 2022Article
- Genomic Prediction Can Provide Precise Estimates of the Genotypic Value of Barley Lines Evaluated in Unreplicated Trials.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Genomic Prediction of Complex Traits in Perennial Plants: A Case for Forest Trees.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Building a Calibration Set for Genomic Prediction, Characteristics to Be Considered, and Optimization Approaches.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Single-step genomic prediction of Eucalyptus dunnii using different identity-by-descent and identity-by-state relationship matrices.Heredity · 2021Article
- Development of a highly efficient 50K single nucleotide polymorphism genotyping array for the large and complex genome of Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst) by whole genome resequencing and its transferability to other spruce species.Molecular ecology resources · 2021Article
- Phenomics, genomics of oil palm (Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2021Review
- Genetic Variation in Drought-Tolerance Traits and Their Relationships to Growth inFrontiers in plant science · 2021Article
- Genomic Predictions With Nonadditive Effects Improved Estimates of Additive Effects and Predictions of Total Genetic Values inFrontiers in plant science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.