ArticleBMC genomics2024
Genomic dissection of additive and non-additive genetic effects and genomic prediction in an open-pollinated family test of Japanese larch.
Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of an open-pollinated genetic mapping framework to facilitate the identification of QTL in apples.The plant genome · 2026Article
- Genetic Evaluation and Selection of Growth Traits ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Provenance variations in wood traits of Larix kaempferi (Lamb.) Carr. and their relationships with growth parameters.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Integrating GWAS-guided markers preselection with genomic selection enhances prediction of pulpwood-related traits in slash pine (Pinus elliottii Englem.).BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Genomic selection for multi-trait crop improvement in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): a practical modeling approach.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Increased genomic predictive ability in mango using GWAS-preselected variants and fixed-effect SNPs.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genomic dissection of genetic effects on desirable traits and the subsequent use of genomic selection hold great promise for accelerating the rate of genetic improvement of forest tree species. In this study, a total of 661 offspring trees from 66 open-pollinated families of Japanese larch (Larix kaempferi (Lam.) Carrière) were sampled at a test site. The contributions of additive and non-additive effects (dominance, imprinting and epistasis) were evaluated for nine valuable traits related to growth, wood physical and chemical properties, and competitive ability using three pedigree-based and four Genomics-based Best Linear Unbiased Predictions (GBLUP) models and used to determine the genetic model. The predictive ability (PA) of two genomic prediction methods, GBLUP and Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces (RKHS), was compared. The traits could be classified into two types based on different quantitative genetic architectures: for type I, including wood chemical properties and Pilodyn penetration, additive effect is the main source of variation (38.20-67.46%); for type II, including growth, competitive ability and acoustic velocity, epistasis plays a significant role (50.76-91.26%). Dominance and imprinting showed low to moderate contributions (< 36.26%). GBLUP was more suitable for traits of type I (PAs = 0.37-0.39 vs. 0.14-0.25), and RKHS was more suitable for traits of type II (PAs = 0.23-0.37 vs. 0.07-0.23). Non-additive effects make no meaningful contribution to the enhancement of PA of GBLUP method for all traits. These findings enhance our current understanding of the architecture of quantitative traits and lay the foundation for the development of genomic selection strategies in Japanese larch.
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.