Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29855322›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018

Core Hunter 3: flexible core subset selection.

Herman De Beukelaer, Guy F Davenport, Veerle Fack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 81 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
81citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

81 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Water stress tolerance, genomic selection and identification of genomic regions in a MAGIC population of eggplant.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Article
  6. ddRAD sequencing of 1076Plant diversity · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Revealing the genetic diversity in the globalFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

21 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

3 authors.

Herman De BeukelaerDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281 S9, Gent, 9000, Belgium. herman.debeukelaer@ugent.be.ORCID 0000-0002-3968-7386
Guy F DavenportNew Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Limited, 412 No1 Rd RD2, Te Puke, New Zealand.
Veerle FackDepartment of Applied Mathematics, Computer Science and Statistics, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281 S9, Gent, 9000, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCore collections provide genebank curators and plant breeders a way to reduce size of their collections and populations, while minimizing impact on genetic diversity and allele frequency. Many methods have been proposed to generate core collections, often using distance metrics to quantify the similarity of two accessions, based on genetic marker data or phenotypic traits. Core Hunter is a multi-purpose core subset selection tool that uses local search algorithms to generate subsets relying on one or more metrics, including several distance metrics and allelic richness.

resultsIn version 3 of Core Hunter (CH3) we have incorporated two new, improved methods for summarizing distances to quantify diversity or representativeness of the core collection. A comparison of CH3 and Core Hunter 2 (CH2) showed that these new metrics can be effectively optimized with less complex algorithms, as compared to those used in CH2. CH3 is more effective at maximizing the improved diversity metric than CH2, still ensures a high average and minimum distance, and is faster for large datasets. Using CH3, a simple stochastic hill-climber is able to find highly diverse core collections, and the more advanced parallel tempering algorithm further increases the quality of the core and further reduces variability across independent samples. We also evaluate the ability of CH3 to simultaneously maximize diversity, and either representativeness or allelic richness, and compare the results with those of the GDOpt and SimEli methods. CH3 can sample equally representative cores as GDOpt, which was specifically designed for this purpose, and is able to construct cores that are simultaneously more diverse, and either are more representative or have higher allelic richness, than those obtained by SimEli.

conclusionsIn version 3, Core Hunter has been updated to include two new core subset selection metrics that construct cores for representativeness or diversity, with improved performance. It combines and outperforms the strengths of other methods, as it (simultaneously) optimizes a variety of metrics. In addition, CH3 is an improvement over CH2, with the option to use genetic marker data or phenotypic traits, or both, and improved speed. Core Hunter 3 is freely available on http://www.corehunter.org .

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGenetic VariationHumansCore collectionsLocal search heuristicsMulti-objective

Identifiers

PMID29855322
PMCPMC6092719

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.