Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28662679›Full record

ArticleBMC plant biology2017

Evaluating the accuracy of genomic prediction of growth and wood traits in two Eucalyptus species and their F

Biyue Tan, Dario Grattapaglia, Gustavo Salgado Martins, Karina Zamprogno Ferreira, Björn Sundberg, Pär K Ingvarsson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC plant biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing 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

63 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Genomic Prediction of Adaptation in Common Bean (International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

3 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

6 authors.

Biyue TanUmeå Plant Science Centre, Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umeå University, Umeå, SE-90187, Sweden.
Dario GrattapagliaEMBRAPA Genetic Resources and Biotechnology - EPqB, Brasilia, DF, 70770-910, Brazil.
Gustavo Salgado MartinsVeracel Celulose S.A., Eunápolis, BA, 45.820-970, Brazil.
Karina Zamprogno FerreiraVeracel Celulose S.A., Eunápolis, BA, 45.820-970, Brazil.
Björn SundbergBiomaterials Division, Stora Enso AB, Nacka, SE-13104, Sweden.
Pär K IngvarssonUmeå Plant Science Centre, Department of Ecology and Environmental Science, Umeå University, Umeå, SE-90187, Sweden. par.ingvarsson@slu.se.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic prediction is a genomics assisted breeding methodology that can increase genetic gains by accelerating the breeding cycle and potentially improving the accuracy of breeding values. In this study, we use 41,304 informative SNPs genotyped in a Eucalyptus breeding population involving 90 E.grandis and 78 E.urophylla parents and their 949 F

resultsHeritabilities estimated using the realized genomic relationship matrix (GRM) were considerably higher than estimates based on the expected pedigree, mainly due to inconsistencies in the expected pedigree that were readily corrected by the GRM. Moreover, the GRM more precisely capture Mendelian sampling among related individuals, such that the genetic covariance was based on the true proportion of the genome shared between individuals. PA improved considerably when increasing the size of the training set and by enhancing relatedness to the validation set. Prediction models trained on pure species parents could not predict well in F

conclusionsThe size and composition of the training set and number of SNPs used are the two most important factors for model prediction, compared to the statistical methods and the genomic location of SNPs. Furthermore, training the prediction model based on pure parental species only provide limited ability to predict traits in interspecific hybrids. Our results provide additional promising perspectives for the implementation of genomic prediction in Eucalyptus breeding programs by the selection of interspecific hybrids.

Indexed as

Hybridization, GeneticModels, BiologicalEucalyptusGenome, PlantPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideWoodBayesian LASSOGBLUPGenome annotationGenomic heritabilityGenomic relationshipHigh-density SNP-chiprrBLUPTwo-generation

Identifiers

PMID28662679
PMCPMC5492818

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.