Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36950349›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2023

Training set designs for prediction of yield and moisture of maize test cross hybrids with unreplicated trials.

Jérôme Terraillon, Frank K Roeber, Christian Flachenecker, Matthias Frisch

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2023. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Jérôme TerraillonInstitute of Agronomy and Plant Breeding II, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.
Frank K RoeberCorteva AgriScience, Munchen, Germany.
Christian FlacheneckerEckernförde, Germany.
Matthias FrischInstitute of Agronomy and Plant Breeding II, Justus Liebig University, Giessen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unreplicated field trials and genomic prediction are both used to enhance the efficiency in early selection stages of a hybrid maize breeding program. No results are available on the optimal experimental design when combining both approaches. Our objectives were to investigate the effect of the training set design on the accuracy of genomic prediction in unreplicated maize test crosses. We carried out a cross validation study on basis of an experimental data set consisting of 1436 hybrids evaluated for yield and moisture for which genotyping information of 461 SNP markers were available. Training set designs of different size, implementing within environment prediction, within year prediction, across year prediction, and combinations of data sources across years and environments were compared with respect to their prediction accuracy. Across year prediction did not reach prediction accuracies that are useful for genomic selection. Within year prediction across environments provided useful correlations between observed and predicted breeding values. The prediction accuracies did not improve when adding to the training set data from previous years. We conclude that using all data available from unreplicated tests of the current breeding cycle provides a good accuracy of predicting test crosses, whereas adding data from previous breeding cycles, in which the genotypes are less related to the tested material, has only limited value for increasing the prediction accuracy.

Indexed as

cross validationgenomic predictionmaizetraining setunreplicated trials

Identifiers

PMID36950349
PMCPMC10025381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read18
measurements read4
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.