ArticlePlants (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Genotype Performance Estimation in Targeted Production Environments by Using Sparse Genomic Prediction.
Article in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic prediction of wild-derived powdery mildew resistance for strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) pre-breeding.Heredity · 2026Article
- Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In plant breeding, Multi-Environment Trials (METs) evaluate candidate genotypes across various conditions, which is financially costly due to extensive field testing. Sparse testing addresses this challenge by evaluating some genotypes in selected environments, allowing for a broader range of environments without significantly increasing costs. This approach integrates genomic information to adjust phenotypic data, leading to more accurate genetic effect estimations. Various sparse testing methods have been explored to optimize resource use. This study employed Incomplete Block Design (IBD) to allocate lines to environments, ensuring not all lines were tested in every environment. We compared IBD to Random line allocation, maintaining a consistent number of environments per line across both methods. The primary objective was to estimate grain yield performance of lines using Genomic Estimated Breeding Values (GEBVs) computed through six Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Predictor (GBLUP) methods. In the first five methods, missing values were predicted before cross-environment adjustment; in the sixth, adjustment was performed directly. Using the Bayesian GBLUP model, we analyzed genotype performance under both IBD and random allocation. Results indicate that computing GEBVs for a target population of environments (TPE) using available phenotype and marker data is effective for selection. The IBD method showed superior performance with less variability compared to random allocation. These findings suggest that using IBD designs can enhance selection accuracy and efficiency, and that pre-adjustment prediction of missing lines may not necessarily improve selection outcomes.
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.