Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34568924›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2021

Multi-trait genomic-enabled prediction enhances accuracy in multi-year wheat breeding trials.

Abelardo Montesinos-López, Daniel E Runcie, Maria Itria Ibba, Paulino Pérez-Rodríguez, Osval A Montesinos-López, Leonardo A Crespo, Alison R Bentley, José Crossa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Comparative analysis of genomic prediction approaches for multiple time-resolved traits in maize.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

8 authors.

Abelardo Montesinos-LópezDepartamento de Matemáticas, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Exactas e Ingenierías (CUCEI), Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara 44430, Mexico.
Daniel E RuncieDepartment of Plant Sciences, College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3008-9312
Maria Itria IbbaInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Carretera México-Veracruz, México.
Paulino Pérez-RodríguezColegio de Postgraduados (COLPOS), Montecillos, Edo. de México, México.
Osval A Montesinos-LópezFacultad de Telemática, Universidad de Colima, Colima, México.
Leonardo A CrespoInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Carretera México-Veracruz, México.
Alison R BentleyInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Carretera México-Veracruz, México.
José CrossaInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Carretera México-Veracruz, México.ORCID 0000-0001-9429-5855

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Implementing genomic-based prediction models in genomic selection requires an understanding of the measures for evaluating prediction accuracy from different models and methods using multi-trait data. In this study, we compared prediction accuracy using six large multi-trait wheat data sets (quality and grain yield). The data were used to predict 1 year (testing) from the previous year (training) to assess prediction accuracy using four different prediction models. The results indicated that the conventional Pearson's correlation between observed and predicted values underestimated the true correlation value, whereas the corrected Pearson's correlation calculated by fitting a bivariate model was higher than the division of the Pearson's correlation by the squared root of the heritability across traits, by 2.53-11.46%. Across the datasets, the corrected Pearson's correlation was higher than the uncorrected by 5.80-14.01%. Overall, we found that for grain yield the prediction performance was highest using a multi-trait compared to a single-trait model. The higher the absolute genetic correlation between traits the greater the benefits of multi-trait models for increasing the genomic-enabled prediction accuracy of traits.

Indexed as

Plant BreedingTriticumGenomicsGenotypeModels, GeneticPhenotypeSelection, Geneticgenomic predictionGenPredmulti-environment analysismulti-trait analysisshared data resourcewheatwheat quality

Identifiers

PMID34568924
PMCPMC8496321

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.