Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30213868›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2018

Empirical Comparisons of Different Statistical Models To Identify and Validate Kernel Row Number-Associated Variants from Structured Multi-parent Mapping Populations of Maize.

Jinliang Yang, Cheng-Ting Eddy Yeh, Raghuprakash Kastoori Ramamurthy, Xinshuai Qi, Rohan L Fernando, Jack C M Dekkers, Dorian J Garrick, Dan Nettleton, Patrick S Schnable

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Regulator Network Analysis of Rice and Maize Yield-Related Genes.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020
    Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Jinliang YangDepartment of Agronomy.ORCID 0000-0002-0999-3518
Cheng-Ting Eddy YehDepartment of Agronomy.ORCID 0000-0002-1392-2018
Raghuprakash Kastoori RamamurthyDepartment of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583.ORCID 0000-0002-7804-712X
Xinshuai QiDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Rohan L FernandoDepartment of Animal Science and Center for Integrated Animal Genomics.ORCID 0000-0001-5821-099X
Jack C M DekkersDepartment of Animal Science and Center for Integrated Animal Genomics.
Dorian J GarrickDepartment of Animal Science and Center for Integrated Animal Genomics.
Dan NettletonDepartment of Statistics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011.
Patrick S SchnableDepartment of Agronomy schnable@iastate.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-9169-5204

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in next generation sequencing technologies and statistical approaches enable genome-wide dissection of phenotypic traits via genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Although multiple statistical approaches for conducting GWAS are available, the power and cross-validation rates of many approaches have been mostly tested using simulated data. Empirical comparisons of single variant (SV) and multi-variant (MV) GWAS approaches have not been conducted to test if a single approach or a combination of SV and MV is effective, through identification and cross-validation of trait-associated loci. In this study, kernel row number (KRN) data were collected from a set of 6,230 entries derived from the Nested Association Mapping (NAM) population and related populations. Three different types of GWAS analyses were performed: 1) single-variant (SV), 2) stepwise regression (STR) and 3) a Bayesian-based multi-variant (BMV) model. Using SV, STR, and BMV models, 257, 300, and 442 KRN-associated variants (KAVs) were identified in the initial GWAS analyses. Of these, 231 KAVs were subjected to genetic validation using three unrelated populations that were not included in the initial GWAS. Genetic validation results suggest that the three GWAS approaches are complementary. Interestingly, KAVs in low recombination regions were more likely to exhibit associations in independent populations than KAVs in recombinationally active regions, probably as a consequence of linkage disequilibrium. The KAVs identified in this study have the potential to enhance our understanding of the genetic basis of ear development.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalGenome-Wide Association StudyPhenotypeZea maysGWAS KRN maize BayesianMPPMultiparent Advanced Generation Inter-Cross (MAGIC)multiparental populations

Identifiers

PMID30213868
PMCPMC6222574

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.