ReviewProtoplasma2026
Research progress on genomic selection breeding technology for crops.
Review in Protoplasma, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Genomic selection (GS) uses genome-wide molecular markers and phenotypic data from a training population to predict breeding values or phenotypes in candidate populations. Unlike marker-assisted selection, GS does not require significance testing of individual markers and is particularly suitable for polygenic traits controlled by many small-effect loci, offering higher prediction accuracy, shorter breeding cycles, and improved efficiency. However, the practical implementation of GS in crops faces several challenges, including low prediction accuracy for traits influenced by genotype-by-environment interactions, difficulty in modeling non-additive effects without overfitting, and the high cost and limited interpretability of machine learning and multi-omics approaches. This review examines key factors that affect GS efficacy, with emphasis on training population design, the incorporation of non-additive effects, and the integration of multi-trait and multi-environment data. We discuss strategies for constructing training populations, compare linear, Bayesian, and machine learning models in terms of predictive performance and interpretability, and address the logistical and economic barriers to multi-omics integration, particularly in hybrid prediction. We also summarize the current status of breeding chip development for major crops. Finally, we highlight future directions, including the development of crop-specific chips, unified analytical platforms, and enhanced model interpretability, to bridge the gap between methodological advances and practical breeding applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42174215What 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.