Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37194433›Full record

ArticleThe plant genome2023

Multi-trait genomic selection improves the prediction accuracy of end-use quality traits in hard winter wheat.

Harsimardeep S Gill, Navreet Brar, Jyotirmoy Halder, Cody Hall, Bradford W Seabourn, Yuanhong R Chen, Paul St Amand, Amy Bernardo, Guihua Bai, Karl Glover and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The plant genome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Evaluating reaction norm and fixed effect models for genomic selection of end-use quality in wheat.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Article
  2. Improving multi-trait genomic prediction using synthetic traits from hyperspectral data based on co-heritability.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The Role ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

12 authors.

Harsimardeep S GillDepartment of Agronomy, Horticulture and Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3067-6912
Navreet BrarDepartment of Agronomy, Horticulture and Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, USA.
Jyotirmoy HalderDepartment of Agronomy, Horticulture and Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, USA.
Cody HallDepartment of Agronomy, Horticulture and Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, USA.
Bradford W SeabournUSDA-ARS, CGAHR, Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.
Yuanhong R ChenUSDA-ARS, CGAHR, Hard Winter Wheat Quality Laboratory, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.
Paul St AmandUSDA-ARS, Hard Winter Wheat Genetics Research Unit, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.
Amy BernardoUSDA-ARS, Hard Winter Wheat Genetics Research Unit, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.
Guihua BaiUSDA-ARS, Hard Winter Wheat Genetics Research Unit, Manhattan, Kansas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1194-319X
Karl GloverDepartment of Agronomy, Horticulture and Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, USA.
Brent TurnipseedDepartment of Agronomy, Horticulture and Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, USA.
Sunish K SehgalDepartment of Agronomy, Horticulture and Plant Science, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5644-7547

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2022-68013-36439South Dakota Wheat Commision 3X2030USDA Agricultural Research Service 59-0206-2-153U.S. Department of Agriculture SD00H695-20
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improvement of end-use quality remains one of the most important goals in hard winter wheat (HWW) breeding. Nevertheless, the evaluation of end-use quality traits is confined to later development generations owing to resource-intensive phenotyping. Genomic selection (GS) has shown promise in facilitating selection for end-use quality; however, lower prediction accuracy (PA) for complex traits remains a challenge in GS implementation. Multi-trait genomic prediction (MTGP) models can improve PA for complex traits by incorporating information on correlated secondary traits, but these models remain to be optimized in HWW. A set of advanced breeding lines from 2015 to 2021 were genotyped with 8725 single-nucleotide polymorphisms and was used to evaluate MTGP to predict various end-use quality traits that are otherwise difficult to phenotype in earlier generations. The MTGP model outperformed the ST model with up to a twofold increase in PA. For instance, PA was improved from 0.38 to 0.75 for bake absorption and from 0.32 to 0.52 for loaf volume. Further, we compared MTGP models by including different combinations of easy-to-score traits as covariates to predict end-use quality traits. Incorporation of simple traits, such as flour protein (FLRPRO) and sedimentation weight value (FLRSDS), substantially improved the PA of MT models. Thus, the rapid low-cost measurement of traits like FLRPRO and FLRSDS can facilitate the use of GP to predict mixograph and baking traits in earlier generations and provide breeders an opportunity for selection on end-use quality traits by culling inferior lines to increase selection accuracy and genetic gains.

Indexed as

Selection, GeneticTriticumGenomicsPhenotypePlant Breeding

Identifiers

PMID37194433
PMCPMC12806972

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.