ArticleBMC genomics2025
Cross-generational genomic prediction of Norway spruce (Picea abies) wood properties: an evaluation using independent validation.
Article in BMC genomics, 2025. 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.
- Optimising realised genetic gain with low forward predictive ability across cycles for cooking time and correlated traits in common bean based on multivariate genomic selection.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe evaluation of genomic selection (GS) efficiency in forestry has primarily relied on cross-validation schemes that split the same population within a single generation for both training and validation. While useful, this approach may not be reliable for multigenerational breeding. To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess genomic prediction in Norway spruce using a large dataset spanning two generations in two environments. We trained pedigree-based (ABLUP) and marker-based (GBLUP) prediction models under three approaches: forward prediction, backward prediction, and across-environment prediction. The models were evaluated for ring-width, solid-wood and tracheid characteristics, using ~ 6,000 phenotyped and ~ 2,500 genotyped individual. Predictive ability (PA) and prediction accuracy (ACC) were estimated using an independent validation method, ensuring no individuals were shared between training and validation datasets. To assess the trade-off between comprehensive radial history and practical direct methods, we compared GBLUP models trained with cumulative area-weighted density (AWE-GBLUP) and single annual-ring density (SAD-GBLUP) from mother plus-trees. These models were validated using early and mature-stage progeny density measurements across two trials.
resultsDespite the smaller number of individuals used in the GBLUP models, both PA and ACC were generally comparable to those of the ABLUP model, particularly for cross-environment predictions. Overall, forward and backward predictions were significantly higher for density-related and tracheid properties, suggesting that across-generation predictions are feasible for wood properties but may be challenging for growth and low-heritability traits. Notably, SAD-GBLUP provided comparable prediction accuracies to AWE-GBLUP, supporting the use of more practical and cost-effective phenotyping methods in operational breeding programs.
conclusionsOur findings highlight the need for context-specific models to improve the accuracy and reliability of genomic prediction in forest tree breeding. Future efforts might aim to expand training populations, incorporate non-additive genetic effects, and validate model performance across cambial ages while accounting for climatic variability during the corresponding growth years. Overall, this study offers a valuable foundation for implementing GS in Norway spruce breeding programs.
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.