Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39292265›Full record

ArticleTAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik2024

Validation of cross-progeny variance genomic prediction using simulations and experimental data in winter elite bread wheat.

Claire Oget-Ebrad, Emmanuel Heumez, Laure Duchalais, Ellen Goudemand-Dugué, François-Xavier Oury, Jean-Michel Elsen, Sophie Bouchet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik, 2024. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Practical Considerations When Using Mendelian Sampling Variances for Selection Decisions in Genomic Selection Programs.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025
    Article
  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.

Claire Oget-EbradUMR1095, GDEC, INRAE-Université Clermont-Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1832-871X
Emmanuel HeumezINRAE-UE Lille, 2 Chaussée Brunehaut, Estrées Mons, BP50136, 80203, Peronne Cedex, France.
Laure DuchalaisAgri-Obtentions, Ferme de Gauvilliers, 78660, Orsonville, France.
Ellen Goudemand-DuguéFlorimond-Desprez Veuve & Fils SAS, Cappelle-en-Pévèle, France.
François-Xavier OuryUMR1095, GDEC, INRAE-Université Clermont-Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Jean-Michel ElsenUMR1388, GenPhySE, INRAE-Université de Toulouse, Castanet-Tolosan, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6773-3151
Sophie BouchetUMR1095, GDEC, INRAE-Université Clermont-Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France. sophie.bouchet@inrae.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5868-3359

Funding

Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) ANR-10-BTBR-0003Fonds de Soutien à l'Obtention Végétale (FSOV) FSOV 2020 I - PrediCropt projectINRAE-Agri-Obtentions IVD program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

key messageFrom simulations and experimental data, the quality of cross progeny variance genomic predictions may be high, but depends on trait architecture and necessitates sufficient number of progenies. Genomic predictions are used to select genitors and crosses in plant breeding. The usefulness criterion (UC) is a cross-selection criterion that necessitates the estimation of parental mean (PM) and progeny standard deviation (SD). This study evaluates the parameters that affect the predictive ability of UC and its two components using simulations. Predictive ability increased with heritability and progeny size and decreased with QTL number, most notably for SD. Comparing scenarios where marker effects were known or estimated using prediction models, SD was strongly impacted by the quality of marker effect estimates. We proposed a new algebraic formula for SD estimation that takes into account the uncertainty of the estimation of marker effects. It improved predictions when the number of QTL was superior to 300, especially when heritability was low. We also compared estimated and observed UC using experimental data for heading date, plant height, grain protein content and yield. PM and UC estimates were significantly correlated for all traits (PM: 0.38, 0.63, 0.51 and 0.91; UC: 0.45, 0.52, 0.54 and 0.74; for yield, grain protein content, plant height and heading date, respectively), while SD was correlated only for heading date and plant height (0.64 and 0.49, respectively). According to simulations, SD estimations in the field would necessitate large progenies. This pioneering study experimentally validates genomic prediction of UC but the predictive ability depends on trait architecture and precision of marker effect estimates. We advise the breeders to adjust progeny size to realize the SD potential of a cross.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, GeneticPhenotypePlant BreedingQuantitative Trait LociTriticumCrosses, GeneticGenetic MarkersGenome, PlantGenomicsGenotypeGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID39292265
PMCPMC11410863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.