ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2017
Influence of epistasis on response to genomic selection using complete sequence data.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating genomic selection and speed breeding for Fusarium head blight resistance in wheat using stochastic simulations.Molecular breeding : new strategies in plant improvement · 2025Article
- Article
- Prediction of additive, epistatic, and dominance effects using models accounting for incomplete inbreeding in parental lines of hybrid rye and sugar beet.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Significance of linkage disequilibrium and epistasis on genetic variances in noninbred and inbred populations.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- Improvement of genomic prediction in advanced wheat breeding lines by including additive-by-additive epistasis.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2022Article
- The somatic molecular evolution of cancer: Mutation, selection, and epistasis.Progress in biophysics and molecular biology · 2021Article
- Investigating the persistence of accuracy of genomic predictions over time in broilers.Journal of animal science · 2021Article
- Modeling Illustrates That Genomic Selection Provides New Opportunities for Intercrop Breeding.Frontiers in plant science · 2021Article
- SeqBreed: a python tool to evaluate genomic prediction in complex scenarios.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2020Article
- Functional gene categories differentiate maize leaf drought-related microbial epiphytic communities.PloS one · 2020Article
- Article
- Lost in Translation: On the Problem of Data Coding in Penalized Whole Genome Regression with Interactions.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2019Article
- Influence of a growth hormone transgene on the genetic architecture of growth-related traits: A comparative analysis between transgenic and wild-type coho salmon.Evolutionary applications · 2018Article
- Article
- Quantifying genomic connectedness and prediction accuracy from additive and non-additive gene actions.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2018Article
- Quantitative Genetics and Genomics Converge to Accelerate Forest Tree Breeding.Frontiers in plant science · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effect of epistasis on response to selection is a highly debated topic. Here, we investigated the impact of epistasis on response to sequence-based selection via genomic best linear prediction (GBLUP) in a regime of strong non-symmetrical epistasis under divergent selection, using real Drosophila sequence data. We also explored the possible advantage of including epistasis in the evaluation model and/or of knowing the causal mutations.
resultsResponse to selection was almost exclusively due to changes in allele frequency at a few loci with a large effect. Response was highly asymmetric (about four phenotypic standard deviations higher for upward than downward selection) due to the highly skewed site frequency spectrum. Epistasis accentuated this asymmetry and affected response to selection by modulating the additive genetic variance, which was sustained for longer under upward selection whereas it eroded rapidly under downward selection. Response to selection was quite insensitive to the evaluation model, especially under an additive scenario. Nevertheless, including epistasis in the model when there was none eventually led to lower accuracies as selection proceeded. Accounting for epistasis in the model, if it existed, was beneficial but only in the medium term. There was not much gain in response if causal mutations were known, compared to using sequence data, which is likely due to strong linkage disequilibrium, high heritability and availability of phenotypes on candidates.
conclusionsEpistatic interactions affect the response to genomic selection by modulating the additive genetic variance used for selection. Epistasis releases additive variance that may increase response to selection compared to a pure additive genetic action. Furthermore, genomic evaluation models and, in particular, GBLUP are robust, i.e. adding complexity to the model did not modify substantially the response (for a given architecture).
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.