ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2019
Genomic Prediction of Additive and Non-additive Effects Using Genetic Markers and Pedigrees.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research progress on genomic selection breeding technology for crops.Protoplasma · 2026Review
- Article
- Breeding for climate adaptation: genetic variation and genomic selection for drought response in Scots pine.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Genomic dissection of additive and non-additive genetic effects and genomic prediction in an open-pollinated family test of Japanese larch.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Utilizing genomic prediction to boost hybrid performance in a sweet corn breeding program.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Genomic studies of the additive and dominant genetic control on production traits of Euterpe edulis fruits.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Additive and non-additive genetic variance in juvenile Sitka spruce (Tree genetics & genomes · 2023Article
- Comparing modeling methods of genomic prediction for growth traits of a tropical timber species,Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Increasing genomic prediction accuracy for unphenotyped full-sib families by modeling additive and dominance effects with large datasets in white spruce.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Breeding for adaptation to climate change: genomic selection for drought response in a white spruce multi-site polycross test.Evolutionary applications · 2022Article
- Increasing cassava root yield: Additive-dominant genetic models for selection of parents and clones.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Achievements and Challenges of Genomics-Assisted Breeding in Forest Trees: From Marker-Assisted Selection to Genome Editing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Genomic prediction in family bulks using different traits and cross-validations in pine.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2021Article
- Robust modeling of additive and nonadditive variation with intuitive inclusion of expert knowledge.Genetics · 2021Article
- Near-infrared spectroscopy outperforms genomics for predicting sugarcane feedstock quality traits.PloS one · 2021Article
- Genomic selection for resistance to spruce budworm in white spruce and relationships with growth and wood quality traits.Evolutionary applications · 2020Article
- Integrating High-Throughput Phenotyping and Statistical Genomic Methods to Genetically Improve Longitudinal Traits in Crops.Frontiers in plant science · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.