Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37819415›Full record

ArticleTAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik2023

Importance of genetic architecture in marker selection decisions for genomic prediction.

Rafael Della Coletta, Samuel B Fernandes, Patrick J Monnahan, Mark A Mikel, Martin O Bohn, Alexander E Lipka, Candice N Hirsch

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Haplotype analysis and molecular marker development for the cold tolerance gene OsCTS11 at the seedling stage of rice.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

7 authors.

Rafael Della ColettaDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6988-9598
Samuel B FernandesDepartment of Crop, Soil and Environmental Sciences at University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA.
Patrick J MonnahanDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA.
Mark A MikelDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Martin O BohnDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Alexander E LipkaDepartment of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA.
Candice N HirschDepartment of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA. cnhirsch@umn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8833-3023

Funding

U.S. Department of Agriculture 2018-67013-2757
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

key messageWe demonstrate potential for improved multi-environment genomic prediction accuracy using structural variant markers. However, the degree of observed improvement is highly dependent on the genetic architecture of the trait. Breeders commonly use genetic markers to predict the performance of untested individuals as a way to improve the efficiency of breeding programs. These genomic prediction models have almost exclusively used single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as their source of genetic information, even though other types of markers exist, such as structural variants (SVs). Given that SVs are associated with environmental adaptation and not all of them are in linkage disequilibrium to SNPs, SVs have the potential to bring additional information to multi-environment prediction models that are not captured by SNPs alone. Here, we evaluated different marker types (SNPs and/or SVs) on prediction accuracy across a range of genetic architectures for simulated traits across multiple environments. Our results show that SVs can improve prediction accuracy, but it is highly dependent on the genetic architecture of the trait and the relative gain in accuracy is minimal. When SVs are the only causative variant type, 70% of the time SV predictors outperform SNP predictors. However, the improvement in accuracy in these instances is only 1.5% on average. Further simulations with predictors in varying degrees of LD with causative variants of different types (e.g., SNPs, SVs, SNPs and SVs) showed that prediction accuracy increased as linkage disequilibrium between causative variants and predictors increased regardless of the marker type. This study demonstrates that knowing the genetic architecture of a trait in deciding what markers to use in large-scale genomic prediction modeling in a breeding program is more important than what types of markers to use.

Indexed as

GenomeModels, GeneticComputer SimulationGenomicsGenotypeHumansPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideSelection, GeneticGenotype-by-environmentMaizePlant breedingSimulationStructural variation

Identifiers

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.