ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2024
Genomic prediction of regional-scale performance in switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) by accounting for genotype-by-environment variation and yield surrogate traits.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Switchgrass is a potential crop for bioenergy or carbon capture schemes, but further yield improvements through selective breeding are needed to encourage commercialization. To identify promising switchgrass germplasm for future breeding efforts, we conducted multisite and multitrait genomic prediction with a diversity panel of 630 genotypes from 4 switchgrass subpopulations (Gulf, Midwest, Coastal, and Texas), which were measured for spaced plant biomass yield across 10 sites. Our study focused on the use of genomic prediction to share information among traits and environments. Specifically, we evaluated the predictive ability of cross-validation (CV) schemes using only genetic data and the training set (cross-validation 1: CV1), a subset of the sites (cross-validation 2: CV2), and/or with 2 yield surrogates (flowering time and fall plant height). We found that genotype-by-environment interactions were largely due to the north-south distribution of sites. The genetic correlations between the yield surrogates and the biomass yield were generally positive (mean height r = 0.85; mean flowering time r = 0.45) and did not vary due to subpopulation or growing region (North, Middle, or South). Genomic prediction models had CV predictive abilities of -0.02 for individuals using only genetic data (CV1), but 0.55, 0.69, 0.76, 0.81, and 0.84 for individuals with biomass performance data from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 sites included in the training data (CV2), respectively. To simulate a resource-limited breeding program, we determined the predictive ability of models provided with the following: 1 site observation of flowering time (0.39); 1 site observation of flowering time and fall height (0.51); 1 site observation of fall height (0.52); 1 site observation of biomass (0.55); and 5 site observations of biomass yield (0.84). The ability to share information at a regional scale is very encouraging, but further research is required to accurately translate spaced plant biomass to commercial-scale sward biomass performance.
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.