Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32664601›Full record

ArticleGenes2020

Genomic Selection in Winter Wheat Breeding Using a Recommender Approach.

Dennis N Lozada, Arron H Carter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. 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

2 authors.

Dennis N LozadaDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6894-242X
Arron H CarterDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8019-6554

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Achieving optimal predictive ability is key to increasing the relevance of implementing genomic selection (GS) approaches in plant breeding programs. The potential of an item-based collaborative filtering (IBCF) recommender system in the context of multi-trait, multi-environment GS has been explored. Different GS scenarios for IBCF were evaluated for a diverse population of winter wheat lines adapted to the Pacific Northwest region of the US. Predictions across years through cross-validations resulted in improved predictive ability when there is a high correlation between environments. Using multiple spectral traits collected from high-throughput phenotyping resulted in better GS accuracies for grain yield (GY) compared to using only single traits for predictions. Trait adjustments through various Bayesian regression models using genomic information from SNP markers was the most effective in achieving improved accuracies for GY, heading date, and plant height among the GS scenarios evaluated. Bayesian LASSO had the highest predictive ability compared to other models for phenotypic trait adjustments. IBCF gave competitive accuracies compared to a genomic best linear unbiased predictor (GBLUP) model for predicting different traits. Overall, an IBCF approach could be used as an alternative to traditional prediction models for important target traits in wheat breeding programs.

Indexed as

GenomicsBayes TheoremEdible GrainGenome, PlantGenotypePhenotypePlant BreedingPolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait LociSelection, GeneticTriticumBayesian modelsgenomic BLUP (GBLUP)grain yieldheading datehigh-throughput phenotypingitem-based collaborative filtering (IBCF)plant heightrecommender systemsnow mold tolerancespectral reflectance indices

Identifiers

PMID32664601
PMCPMC7397162

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.