ArticlePloS one2019
Functional models in genome-wide selection.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reversible jumps for the joint modeling of the dimension of pseudo-functional models in chromosomal windows in genome-wide selection.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Genomic prediction through machine learning and neural networks for traits with epistasis.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development of sequencing technologies has enabled the discovery of markers that are abundantly distributed over the whole genome. Knowledge about the marker locations in reference genomes provides further insights in the search for causal regions and the prediction of genomic values. The present study proposes a Bayesian functional approach for incorporating the marker locations into genomic analysis using stochastic methods to search causal regions and predict genotypic values. For this, three scenarios were analyzed: F2 population with 300 individuals and three different heritability levels (0.2, 0.5, and 0.8), along with 12,150 SNP markers that were distributed through ten linkage groups; F∞ populations with 320 individuals and three different heritability levels (0.2, 0.5, and 0.8), along with 10,020 SNP markers that were distributed through ten linkage groups; and data related to Eucalyptus spp. to measure the model performance in a real LD setting, with 611 individuals whose phenotypes were simulated from QTLs distributed through a panel of 36,812 SNPs with known positions. The performance of the proposed method was compared with those of other genome selection models, namely, RR-BLUP, Bayes B and Bayesian Lasso. The Bayesian functional model presented higher or similar predictive ability when compared with those classical regressions methods in simulated and real scenarios on different LD structures. In general, the Bayesian functional model also achieved higher computational efficiency, using 12 SNPs per MCMC round. The model was efficient in the identification of causal regions and showed high flexibility of analysis, as it is easily adaptable to any genomic selection model.
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.