Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31263059›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2019

Genomic Prediction of Additive and Non-additive Effects Using Genetic Markers and Pedigrees.

Janeo Eustáquio de Almeida Filho, João Filipi Rodrigues Guimarães, Fabyano Fonsceca E Silva, Marcos Deon Vilela de Resende, Patricio Muñoz, Matias Kirst, Marcio Fernando Ribeiro de Resende Júnior

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 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
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

7 authors.

Janeo Eustáquio de Almeida FilhoGenetic Plant Improvenent Lab, Norte Fluminense "Darcy Ribeiro" State University, Campos dos Goytacazes RJ, 28013-602, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3906-8884
João Filipi Rodrigues GuimarãesFuturagene Ltda, Itapetininga SP, 18207-780, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-3849-9834
Fabyano Fonsceca E SilvaAnimal Science Department, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, MG 36570-000, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9536-1113
Marcos Deon Vilela de ResendeEMBRAPA Forestry, Colombo, PR 83411-000, Brazil / Statistics Department, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, MG 36570-000, Brazil.
Patricio MuñozHorticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, and.ORCID 0000-0001-8973-9351
Matias KirstUniversity of Florida Genetics Institute, School of Forest Resources and Conservation, Gainesville, FL 32611.
Marcio Fernando Ribeiro de Resende JúniorHorticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, and mresende@ufl.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2367-0766

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genetic merit of individuals can be estimated using models with dense markers and pedigree information. Early genomic models accounted only for additive effects. However, the prediction of non-additive effects is important for different forest breeding systems where the whole genotypic value can be captured through clonal propagation. In this study, we evaluated the integration of marker data with pedigree information, in models that included or ignored non-additive effects. We tested the models Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces (RKHS) and BayesA, with additive and additive-dominance frameworks. Model performance was assessed for the traits tree height, diameter at breast height and rust resistance, measured in 923 pine individuals from a structured population of 71 full-sib families. We have also simulated a population with similar genetic properties and evaluated the performance of models for six simulated traits with distinct genetic architectures. Different cross validation strategies were evaluated, and highest accuracies were achieved using within family cross validation. The inclusion of pedigree information in genomic prediction models did not yield higher accuracies. The different RKHS models resulted in similar predictions accuracies, and RKHS and BayesA generated substantially better predictions than pedigree-only models. The additive-BayesA resulted in higher accuracies than RKHS for rust incidence and in simulated additive-oligogenic traits. For DBH, HT and additive-dominance polygenic traits, the RKHS- based models showed slightly higher accuracies than BayesA. Our results indicate that BayesA performs the best for traits with few genes with major effects, while RKHS based models can best predict genotypic effects for clonal selection of complex traits.

Indexed as

Genetic MarkersGenomeGenomicsModels, GeneticPedigreeAlgorithmsBreedingGenetics, PopulationGenotypePhenotypePlant BreedingReproducibility of ResultsGenetic MarkersBayesAGenomic PredictionGenotypic ValueGenPredOligogenicPolygenicRKHSShared Data Resources

Identifiers

PMID31263059
PMCPMC6686920

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.