ArticleTAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik2023
Importance of genetic architecture in marker selection decisions for genomic prediction.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research progress on genomic selection breeding technology for crops.Protoplasma · 2026Review
- Haplotype applications in genomic selection.Genome biology · 2026Review
- 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 · 2025Article
- Integrating Genetic Diversity and Agronomic Innovations for Climate-Resilient Maize Systems.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Integrating multi-layered biological priors to improve genomic prediction accuracy in beef cattle.Biology direct · 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
7 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
37819415What 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.