Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27672112›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2016

Improvement of Predictive Ability by Uniform Coverage of the Target Genetic Space.

Daniela Bustos-Korts, Marcos Malosetti, Scott Chapman, Ben Biddulph, Fred van Eeuwijk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Assessment of genomic prediction capabilities of transcriptome data in a barley multi-parent RIL population.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Genomic Prediction: Progress and Perspectives for Rice Improvement.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Review
  10. Article
  11. An IBD-based mixed model approach for QTL mapping in multiparental populations.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

5 authors.

Daniela Bustos-KortsC.T. de Wit Graduate School for Production Ecology and Resource Conservation (PE&RC), Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3827-6726
Marcos MalosettiBiometris, Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8150-1397
Scott ChapmanCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Agriculture, Queensland Bioscience Precinct, St. Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia.
Ben BiddulphDepartment of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, South Perth, Western Australia 6151, Australia.
Fred van EeuwijkBiometris, Wageningen University and Research, The Netherlands fred.vaneeuwijk@wur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3672-2921

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome-enabled prediction provides breeders with the means to increase the number of genotypes that can be evaluated for selection. One of the major challenges in genome-enabled prediction is how to construct a training set of genotypes from a calibration set that represents the target population of genotypes, where the calibration set is composed of a training and validation set. A random sampling protocol of genotypes from the calibration set will lead to low quality coverage of the total genetic space by the training set when the calibration set contains population structure. As a consequence, predictive ability will be affected negatively, because some parts of the genotypic diversity in the target population will be under-represented in the training set, whereas other parts will be over-represented. Therefore, we propose a training set construction method that uniformly samples the genetic space spanned by the target population of genotypes, thereby increasing predictive ability. To evaluate our method, we constructed training sets alongside with the identification of corresponding genomic prediction models for four genotype panels that differed in the amount of population structure they contained (maize Flint, maize Dent, wheat, and rice). Training sets were constructed using uniform sampling, stratified-uniform sampling, stratified sampling and random sampling. We compared these methods with a method that maximizes the generalized coefficient of determination (CD). Several training set sizes were considered. We investigated four genomic prediction models: multi-locus QTL models, GBLUP models, combinations of QTL and GBLUPs, and Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Space (RKHS) models. For the maize and wheat panels, construction of the training set under uniform sampling led to a larger predictive ability than under stratified and random sampling. The results of our methods were similar to those of the CD method. For the rice panel, all training set construction methods led to similar predictive ability, a reflection of the very strong population structure in this panel.

Indexed as

genetic spacegenomic predictionGenomic SelectionGenPredpopulation structureRKHS modelShared Data Resourcestraining set

Identifiers

PMID27672112
PMCPMC5100872

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.