Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31725759›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Cassava yield traits predicted by genomic selection methods.

Luciano Rogério Braatz de Andrade, Massaine Bandeira E Sousa, Eder Jorge Oliveira, Marcos Deon Vilela de Resende, Camila Ferreira Azevedo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Genome-wide association mapping and genomic prediction of yield-related traits and starch pasting properties in cassava.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2022
    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

5 authors.

Luciano Rogério Braatz de AndradeDepartment of Plant Science, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-4752-1164
Massaine Bandeira E SousaCenter of Agrarian, Environmental and Biological Sciences, Universidade Federal do Recôncavo da Bahia, Cruz das Almas, Bahia, Brazil.
Eder Jorge OliveiraEmbrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura, Cruz das Almas, Bahia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-8992-7459
Marcos Deon Vilela de ResendeDepartment of Forestry Engineering, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Camila Ferreira AzevedoDepartment of Statistics, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0438-5123

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) has been used to optimize genetic gains when phenotypic selection is considered costly and difficult to measure. The objective of this work was to evaluate the efficiency and consistency of GS prediction for cassava yield traits (Manihot esculenta Crantz) using different methods, taking into account the effect of population structure. BLUPs and deregressed BLUPs were obtained for 888 cassava accessions and evaluated for fresh root yield, dry root yield and dry matter content in roots in 21 trials conducted from 2011 to 2016. The deregressed BLUPs obtained for the accessions from a 48K single nucleotide polymorphism dataset were used for genomic predictions based on the BayesB, BLASSO, RR-BLUP, G-BLUP and RKHS methods. The accessions' BLUPs were used in the validation step using four cross-validation strategies, taking into account population structure and different GS methods. Similar estimates of predictive ability and bias were identified for the different genomic selection methods in the first cross-validation strategy. Lower predictive ability was observed for fresh root yield (0.4569 -RR-BLUP to 0.4756-RKHS) and dry root yield (0.4689 -G-BLUP to 0.4818-RKHS) in comparison with dry matter content (0.5655 -BLASSO to 0.5670 -RKHS). However, the RKHS method exhibited higher efficiency and consistency in most of the validation scenarios in terms of prediction ability for fresh root yield and dry root yield. The correlations of the genomic estimated breeding values between the genomic selection methods were quite high (0.99-1.00), resulting in high coincidence of clone selection regardless of the genomic selection method. The deviance analyses within and between the validation clusters formed by the discriminant analysis of principal components were significant for all traits. Therefore, this study indicated that i) the prediction of dry matter content was more accurate compared to that of yield traits, possibly as a result of the smaller influence of non-additive genetic effects; ii) the RKHS method resulted in high and stable prediction ability in most of the validation scenarios; and iii) some kinship between the validation and training populations is desirable in order for genomic selection to succeed due to the significant effect of population structure on genomic selection predictions.

Indexed as

Quantitative Trait, HeritableCluster AnalysisGenomicsManihotModels, GeneticPlant BreedingPlant RootsReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID31725759
PMCPMC6855463

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.