Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33763106›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2020

Utility of Climatic Information via Combining Ability Models to Improve Genomic Prediction for Yield Within the Genomes to Fields Maize Project.

Diego Jarquin, Natalia de Leon, Cinta Romay, Martin Bohn, Edward S Buckler, Ignacio Ciampitti, Jode Edwards, David Ertl, Sherry Flint-Garcia, Michael A Gore and 23 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
13.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 91 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Optimizing resource allocation inFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Integration of crop modeling and sensing into molecular breeding for nutritional quality and stress tolerance.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Reaction norm for genomic prediction of plant growth: modeling drought stress response in soybean.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

33 authors at 17 institutions in 2 countries.

Diego JarquinDepartment of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, United States.
Natalia de LeonDepartment of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.
Cinta RomayInstitute for Genomic Diversity, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Martin BohnDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
Edward S BucklerInstitute for Genomic Diversity, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Ignacio CiampittiDepartment of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, United States.
Jode EdwardsDepartment of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
David ErtlIowa Corn Promotion Board, Johnston, IA, United States.
Sherry Flint-GarciaU.S. Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service Plant Genetics Research Unit, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, United States.
Michael A GorePlant Breeding and Genetics Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Christopher GrahamPlant Science Department, West River Agricultural Center, South Dakota State University, Rapid City, SD, United States.
Candice N HirschDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, United States.
James B HollandU.S. Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service Plant Science Research Unit, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States.
David HookerDepartment of Plant Agriculture, Ridgetown Campus, University of Guelph, Ridgetown, ON, Canada.
Shawn M KaepplerDepartment of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.
Joseph KnollU.S. Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service Crop Genetics and Breeding Research Unit, Tifton, GA, United States.
Elizabeth C LeeDepartment of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Carolyn J Lawrence-DillDepartment of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Jonathan P LynchDepartment of Plant Science, Penn State University, University Park, PA, United States.
Stephen P MooseDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urban-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States.
Seth C MurrayDepartment of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.
Rebecca NelsonPlant Pathology and Plant-Microbe Biology Section, School of Integrative Plant Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Torbert RochefordDepartment of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States.
James C SchnableDepartment of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, United States.
Patrick S SchnableU.S. Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service Corn Insects and Crop Genetics Research Unit, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Margaret SmithU.S. Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service Plant, Soil, and Nutrition Research Unit, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Nathan SpringerDepartment of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, United States.
Peter ThomisonDepartment of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Mitch TuinstraDepartment of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States.
Randall J WisserDepartment of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, United States.
Wenwei XuTexas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University, Lubbock, TX, United States.
Jianming YuDepartment of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
Aaron LorenzDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, United States.
Cornell University · USIowa State University · USUniversity of Minnesota · USPurdue University West Lafayette · USTexas A&M University · USUniversity of Guelph · CAUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · USUniversity of Nebraska–Lincoln · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USKansas State University · USNorth Carolina State University · USPennsylvania State University · USSouth Dakota State University · USThe Ohio State University · USUnited States Department of Agriculture · USUniversity of Delaware · USUniversity of Missouri · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic prediction provides an efficient alternative to conventional phenotypic selection for developing improved cultivars with desirable characteristics. New and improved methods to genomic prediction are continually being developed that attempt to deal with the integration of data types beyond genomic information. Modern automated weather systems offer the opportunity to capture continuous data on a range of environmental parameters at specific field locations. In principle, this information could characterize training and target environments and enhance predictive ability by incorporating weather characteristics as part of the genotype-by-environment (G×E) interaction component in prediction models. We assessed the usefulness of including weather data variables in genomic prediction models using a naïve environmental kinship model across 30 environments comprising the Genomes to Fields (G2F) initiative in 2014 and 2015. Specifically four different prediction scenarios were evaluated (i) tested genotypes in observed environments; (ii) untested genotypes in observed environments; (iii) tested genotypes in unobserved environments; and (iv) untested genotypes in unobserved environments. A set of 1,481 unique hybrids were evaluated for grain yield. Evaluations were conducted using five different models including main effect of environments; general combining ability (GCA) effects of the maternal and paternal parents modeled using the genomic relationship matrix; specific combining ability (SCA) effects between maternal and paternal parents; interactions between genetic (GCA and SCA) effects and environmental effects; and finally interactions between the genetics effects and environmental covariates. Incorporation of the genotype-by-environment interaction term improved predictive ability across all scenarios. However, predictive ability was not improved through inclusion of naive environmental covariates in G×E models. More research should be conducted to link the observed weather conditions with important physiological aspects in plant development to improve predictive ability through the inclusion of weather data.

Indexed as

general combining ability (GCA)Genomes to Fields (G2F) initiativegenomic predictiongenotype-by-environment interaction (G×E)hybrid predictionspecific combining ability (SCA)

Identifiers

PMID33763106
PMCPMC7982677
OpenAlexW3133644862

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.