ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2022
Combining genetic resources and elite material populations to improve the accuracy of genomic prediction in apple.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic prediction in a small barley population can benefit from training on related populations.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- Genomic prediction in Persian walnut: Optimization levers according to genetic architecture of complex traits.The plant genome · 2025Article
- Evaluation of genomic and phenomic prediction for application in apple breeding.BMC plant biology · 2025Article
- High-quality phenotypic and genotypic dataset of barley genebank core collection to unlock untapped genetic diversity.GigaScience · 2025Article
- Genomic selection for crop improvement in fruits and vegetables: a systematic scoping review.Molecular breeding : new strategies in plant improvement · 2024Article
- Genomewide selection for fruit quality traits in apple: breeding insights gained from prediction and postdiction.Horticulture research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomic selection is an attractive strategy for apple breeding that could reduce the length of breeding cycles. A possible limitation to the practical implementation of this approach lies in the creation of a training set large and diverse enough to ensure accurate predictions. In this study, we investigated the potential of combining two available populations, i.e., genetic resources and elite material, in order to obtain a large training set with a high genetic diversity. We compared the predictive ability of genomic predictions within-population, across-population or when combining both populations, and tested a model accounting for population-specific marker effects in this last case. The obtained predictive abilities were moderate to high according to the studied trait and small increases in predictive ability could be obtained for some traits when the two populations were combined into a unique training set. We also investigated the potential of such a training set to predict hybrids resulting from crosses between the two populations, with a focus on the method to design the training set and the best proportion of each population to optimize predictions. The measured predictive abilities were very similar for all the proportions, except for the extreme cases where only one of the two populations was used in the training set, in which case predictive abilities could be lower than when using both populations. Using an optimization algorithm to choose the genotypes in the training set also led to higher predictive abilities than when the genotypes were chosen at random. Our results provide guidelines to initiate breeding programs that use genomic selection when the implementation of the training set is a limitation.
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.