Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34899794›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2021

Training Set Construction for Genomic Prediction in Auto-Tetraploids: An Example in Potato.

Stefan Wilson, Marcos Malosetti, Chris Maliepaard, Han A Mulder, Richard G F Visser, Fred van Eeuwijk

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Transferability of genomic prediction models across market segments in potato and the effect of selection.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stefan WilsonBiometris, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Marcos MalosettiBiometris, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Chris MaliepaardPlant Breeding, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Han A MulderWageningen University & Research, Animal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Richard G F VisserPlant Breeding, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Fred van EeuwijkBiometris, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Wageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Training set construction is an important prerequisite to Genomic Prediction (GP), and while this has been studied in diploids, polyploids have not received the same attention. Polyploidy is a common feature in many crop plants, like for example banana and blueberry, but also potato which is the third most important crop in the world in terms of food consumption, after rice and wheat. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of different training set construction methods using a publicly available diversity panel of tetraploid potatoes. Four methods of training set construction were compared: simple random sampling, stratified random sampling, genetic distance sampling and sampling based on the coefficient of determination (CDmean). For stratified random sampling, population structure analyses were carried out in order to define sub-populations, but since sub-populations accounted for only 16.6% of genetic variation, there were negligible differences between stratified and simple random sampling. For genetic distance sampling, four genetic distance measures were compared and though they performed similarly, Euclidean distance was the most consistent. In the majority of cases the CDmean method was the best sampling method, and compared to simple random sampling gave improvements of 4-14% in cross-validation scenarios, and 2-8% in scenarios with an independent test set, while genetic distance sampling gave improvements of 5.5-10.5% and 0.4-4.5%. No interaction was found between sampling method and the statistical model for the traits analyzed.

Indexed as

auto-tetraploidgenomic prediction (GP)potatosampling technique(s)training set construction

Identifiers

PMID34899794
PMCPMC8651708
OpenAlexW3215178103

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.