ArticleBMC genomics2024
Genomic evaluation for breeding and genetic management in Cordia africana, a multipurpose tropical tree species.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrating Traditional Breeding and Modern Biotechnology for Advanced Forest Tree Improvement.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Quantifying genetic and genotypic gain gaps in Eucalyptus: the hidden cost of ignoring inbreeding and dominance.Heredity · 2025Article
- Article
- From phylogenomics to breeding: Can universal target capture probes be used in the development of SNP markers for kinship analysis?Applications in plant sciencesArticle
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
backgroundPlanting tested forest reproductive material is crucial to ensure the increased resilience of intensively managed productive stands for timber and wood product markets under climate change scenarios. Single-step Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (ssGBLUP) analysis is a cost-effective option for using genomic tools to enhance the accuracy of predicted breeding values and genetic parameter estimation in forest tree species. Here, we tested the efficiency of ssGBLUP in a tropical multipurpose tree species, Cordia africana, by partial population genotyping. A total of 8070 trees from three breeding seedling orchards (BSOs) were phenotyped for height. We genotyped 6.1% of the phenotyped individuals with 4373 single nucleotide polymorphisms. The results of ssGBLUP were compared with pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction (ABLUP) and genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), based on genetic parameters, theoretical accuracy of breeding values, selection candidate ranking, genetic gain, and predictive accuracy and prediction bias.
resultsGenotyping a subset of the study population provided insights into the level of relatedness in BSOs, allowing better genetic management. Due to the inbreeding detected within the genotyped provenances, we estimated genetic parameters both with and without accounting for inbreeding. The ssGBLUP model showed improved performance in terms of additive genetic variance and theoretical breeding value accuracy. Similarly, ssGBLUP showed improved predictive accuracy and lower bias than the pedigree-based relationship matrix (ABLUP).
conclusionsThis study of C. africana, a species in decline due to deforestation and selective logging, revealed inbreeding depression. The provenance exhibiting the highest level of inbreeding had the poorest overall performance. The use of different relationship matrices and accounting for inbreeding did not substantially affect the ranking of candidate individuals. This is the first study of this approach in a tropical multipurpose tree species, and the analysed BSOs represent the primary effort to breed C. africana.
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.