ArticleThe plant genome2022
Imputation of low-density marker chip data in plant breeding: Evaluation of methods based on sugar beet.
Article in The plant genome, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Twenty-one years of three-way hybrid breeding shaped diversity and complementarity of male and female gene pools in sugar beet.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Article
- Efficiency under epistasis of haplotype-based genomic selection for pure line breeding.Heredity · 2026Article
- Evaluation ofJournal of nematology · 2026Article
- Genotype imputation from low-coverage WGS using haplotype reference panels in cultivated strawberry.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Mediated pleiotropy drives the negative correlation of total carotenoid and dry matter contents in cassava (Manihot esculenta).Genetics · 2025Article
- Imputation of low-density marker chip data in plant breeding: Evaluation of methods based on sugar beet.The plant genome · 2022Article
- A multiple phenotype imputation method for genetic diversity and core collection in Taiwanese vegetable soybean.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-density genotyping followed by imputation reduces genotyping costs while still providing high-density marker information. An increased marker density has the potential to improve the outcome of all applications that are based on genomic data. This study investigates techniques for 1k to 20k genomic marker imputation for plant breeding programs with sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. ssp. vulgaris) as an example crop, where these are realistic marker numbers for modern breeding applications. The generally accepted 'gold standard' for imputation, Beagle 5.1, was compared with the recently developed software AlphaPlantImpute2 which is designed specifically for plant breeding. For Beagle 5.1 and AlphaPlantImpute2, the imputation strategy as well as the imputation parameters were optimized in this study. We found that the imputation accuracy of Beagle could be tremendously improved (0.22 to 0.67) by tuning parameters, mainly by lowering the values for the parameter for the effective population size and increasing the number of iterations performed. Separating the phasing and imputation steps also improved accuracies when optimized parameters were used (0.67 to 0.82). We also found that the imputation accuracy of Beagle decreased when more low-density lines were included for imputation. AlphaPlantImpute2 produced very high accuracies without optimization (0.89) and was generally less responsive to optimization. Overall, AlphaPlantImpute2 performed relatively better for imputation whereas Beagle was better for phasing. Combining both tools yielded the highest accuracies.
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.