Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36258672›Full record

ArticleThe plant genome2022

Imputation of low-density marker chip data in plant breeding: Evaluation of methods based on sugar beet.

Tobias Niehoff, Torsten Pook, Mahmood Gholami, Timothy Beissinger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation ofJournal of nematology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Tobias NiehoffAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen Univ. & Research, Postbox 338, 6700AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3046-6699
Torsten PookAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen Univ. & Research, Postbox 338, 6700AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7874-8500
Mahmood GholamiRD-SBCE-BTA, KWS SAAT SE & Co. KGaA, Grimsehlstr. 31, Einbeck, 37574, Germany.
Timothy BeissingerDep. of Crop Sciences, Division of Plant Breeding Methodology, Univ. of Göttingen, Göttingen, 37075, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2882-4074

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Beta vulgarisAnimalsDogsGenotypePlant BreedingPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSugarsSugars

Identifiers

PMID36258672
PMCPMC12807303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.