Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30530641›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2019

Optimizing Genomic Selection for a Sorghum Breeding Program in Haiti: A Simulation Study.

Kebede T Muleta, Gael Pressoir, Geoffrey P Morris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bridging tradition and innovation: a review of computer simulations in plant breeding.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 110 years of rice breeding at LSU: realized genetic gains and future optimization.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Genomic resources, opportunities, and prospects for accelerated improvement of millets.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

3 authors.

Kebede T MuletaDepartment of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas.ORCID 0000-0001-5403-5098
Gael PressoirChibas and Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Quisqueya University, Port-au-Prince, Haiti.
Geoffrey P MorrisDepartment of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas gpmorris@ksu.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3067-3359

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Young breeding programs in developing countries, like the Chibas sorghum breeding program in Haiti, face the challenge of increasing genetic gain with limited resources. Implementing genomic selection (GS) could increase genetic gain, but optimization of GS is needed to account for these programs' unique challenges and advantages. Here, we used simulations to identify conditions under which genomic-assisted recurrent selection (GARS) would be more effective than phenotypic recurrent selection (PRS) in small new breeding programs. We compared genetic gain, cost per unit gain, genetic variance, and prediction accuracy of GARS (two or three cycles per year)

Indexed as

Models, GeneticSelection, GeneticComputer SimulationGenome-Wide Association StudyHaitiMultifactorial InheritancePlant BreedingSelective BreedingSorghumgenetic architecturegenetic gaingenome-wide predictionMolecular breedingsimulationsmallholder agriculture

Identifiers

PMID30530641
PMCPMC6385988

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.