ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2023
Comparison of genomic-enabled cross selection criteria for the improvement of inbred line breeding populations.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- GS-Impute: A neural network framework for accurate imputation of low-density markers in across-population genomic selection.Plant communications · 2026Article
- Optimization of family sizes in sets of crosses with a greedy allocation strategy based on automatic differentiation.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- Prediction of additive genetic variances of descendants for complex families based on Mendelian sampling variances.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Article
- Cross potential selection: a proposal for optimizing crossing combinations in recurrent selection using the usefulness criterion of future inbred lines.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024Article
- Validation of cross-progeny variance genomic prediction using simulations and experimental data in winter elite bread wheat.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A crucial step in inbred plant breeding is the choice of mating design to derive high-performing inbred varieties while also maintaining a competitive breeding population to secure sufficient genetic gain in future generations. In practice, the mating design usually relies on crosses involving the best parental inbred lines to ensure high mean progeny performance. This excludes crosses involving lower performing but more complementary parents in terms of favorable alleles. We predicted the ability of crosses to produce putative outstanding progenies (high mean and high variance progeny distribution) using genomic prediction models. This study compared the benefits and drawbacks of 7 genomic cross selection criteria (CSC) in terms of genetic gain for 1 trait and genetic diversity in the next generation. Six CSC were already published, and we propose an improved CSC that can estimate the proportion of progeny above a threshold defined for the whole mating plan. We simulated mating designs optimized using different CSC. The 835 elite parents came from a real breeding program and were evaluated between 2000 and 2016. We applied constraints on parental contributions and genetic similarities between selected parents according to usual breeder practices. Our results showed that CSC based on progeny variance estimation increased the genetic value of superior progenies by up to 5% in the next generation compared to CSC based on the progeny mean estimation (i.e. parental genetic values) alone. It also increased the genetic gain (up to 4%) and/or maintained more genetic diversity at QTLs (up to 4% more genic variance when the marker effects were perfectly estimated).
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.