Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36892603›Full record

ArticleTAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik2023

A comparison of methods for training population optimization in genomic selection.

Javier Fernández-González, Deniz Akdemir, Julio Isidro Y Sánchez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing 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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Unveiling the interactions between design optimization, modeling strategies, and spatial analysis in genomic selection.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

Javier Fernández-GonzálezCentro de Biotecnologia y Genómica de Plantas (CBGP, UPM-INIA), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) - Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA), Campus de Montegancedo-UPM, 28223, Madrid, Spain. javier.fgonzalez@upm.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2109-7783
Deniz AkdemirCIBMTR (Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research), National Marrow Donor Program/Be The Match, Minneapolis, USA.
Julio Isidro Y SánchezCentro de Biotecnologia y Genómica de Plantas (CBGP, UPM-INIA), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) - Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA), Campus de Montegancedo-UPM, 28223, Madrid, Spain. j.isidro@upm.es.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9044-3221

Funding

Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades BEAGAL18/00115
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

key messageMaximizing CDmean and Avg_GRM_self were the best criteria for training set optimization. A training set size of 50-55% (targeted) or 65-85% (untargeted) is needed to obtain 95% of the accuracy.  With the advent of genomic selection (GS) as a widespread breeding tool, mechanisms to efficiently design an optimal training set for GS models became more relevant, since they allow maximizing the accuracy while minimizing the phenotyping costs. The literature described many training set optimization methods, but there is a lack of a comprehensive comparison among them. This work aimed to provide an extensive benchmark among optimization methods and optimal training set size by testing a wide range of them in seven datasets, six different species, different genetic architectures, population structure, heritabilities, and with several GS models to provide some guidelines about their application in breeding programs. Our results showed that targeted optimization (uses information from the test set) performed better than untargeted (does not use test set data), especially when heritability was low. The mean coefficient of determination was the best targeted method, although it was computationally intensive. Minimizing the average relationship within the training set was the best strategy for untargeted optimization. Regarding the optimal training set size, maximum accuracy was obtained when the training set was the entire candidate set. Nevertheless, a 50-55% of the candidate set was enough to reach 95-100% of the maximum accuracy in the targeted scenario, while we needed a 65-85% for untargeted optimization. Our results also suggested that a diverse training set makes GS robust against population structure, while including clustering information was less effective. The choice of the GS model did not have a significant influence on the prediction accuracies.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticSelection, GeneticGenomeGenomicsGenotypePhenotype

Identifiers

PMID36892603
PMCPMC9998580

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.