Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30131817›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2018

The Value of Expanding the Training Population to Improve Genomic Selection Models in Tetraploid Potato.

Elsa Sverrisdóttir, Ea Høegh Riis Sundmark, Heidi Øllegaard Johnsen, Hanne Grethe Kirk, Torben Asp, Luc Janss, Glenn Bryan, Kåre Lehmann Nielsen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
125.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 403 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. PotatoMASH is a cost-effective marker system for genomic prediction in potato based on short-read haplotypes.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Transferability of genomic prediction models across market segments in potato and the effect of selection.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Genomic selection for crop improvement in fruits and vegetables: a systematic scoping review.Molecular breeding : new strategies in plant improvement · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Recent Advances in Molecular Improvement for Potato Tuber Traits.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Elsa SverrisdóttirDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Ea Høegh Riis SundmarkDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Heidi Øllegaard JohnsenDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Hanne Grethe KirkDanespo, Vandel, Denmark.
Torben AspDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics-Crop Genetics and Biotechnology, Aarhus University, Slagelse, Denmark.
Luc JanssDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Glenn BryanCell and Molecular Sciences, The James Hutton Institute, Dundee, United Kingdom.
Kåre Lehmann NielsenDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Aalborg University · DKAarhus University · DKJames Hutton Institute · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) is becoming increasingly applicable to crops as the genotyping costs continue to decrease, which makes it an attractive alternative to traditional selective breeding based on observed phenotypes. With genome-wide molecular markers, selection based on predictions from genotypes can be made in the absence of direct phenotyping. The reliability of predictions depends strongly on the number of individuals used for training the predictive algorithms, particularly in a highly genetically diverse organism such as potatoes; however, the relationship between the individuals also has an enormous impact on prediction accuracy. Here we have studied genomic prediction in three different panels of potato cultivars, varying in size, design, and phenotypic profile. We have developed genomic prediction models for two important agronomic traits of potato, dry matter content and chipping quality. We used genotyping-by-sequencing to genotype 1,146 individuals and generated genomic prediction models from 167,637 markers to calculate genomic estimated breeding values with genomic best linear unbiased prediction. Cross-validated prediction correlations of 0.75-0.83 and 0.39-0.79 were obtained for dry matter content and chipping quality, respectively, when combining the three populations. These prediction accuracies were similar to those obtained when predicting performance within each panel. In contrast, but not unexpectedly, predictions across populations were generally lower, 0.37-0.71 and 0.28-0.48 for dry matter content and chipping quality, respectively. These predictions are not limited by the number of markers included, since similar prediction accuracies could be obtained when using merely 7,800 markers (<5%). Our results suggest that predictions across breeding populations in tetraploid potato are presently unreliable, but that individual prediction models within populations can be combined in an additive fashion to obtain high quality prediction models relevant for several breeding populations.

Indexed as

chipping qualitydry mattergenomic predictiongenomic selectionpotato breedingSolanum tuberosum

Identifiers

PMID30131817
PMCPMC6090097
OpenAlexW2885105421

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.