ArticleFrontiers in plant science2026
Optimizing phenotypic data analysis strategies to enhance genomic prediction in winter wheat breeding.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Proper analysis of phenotypic data is essential for reliable genomic prediction (GP) and sustained genetic gain in breeding programs. In this study, we used phenotypic and genotypic data generated from the winter wheat breeding program of Deutsche Saatveredelung AG (DSV), Lippstadt, Germany, comprising 1,941 genotypes and 6,335 SNP markers across three traits: grain yield, plant height, and heading date. We evaluated the impact of different two-stage analysis strategies: one using the environment (year × location combination) as the analysis unit (TS-S1) and the other using the breeding stage as the analysis unit (TS-S2), each with and without accounting for breeding-stage effects (-YesBS and -NoBS), on the computation of best linear unbiased estimates (BLUEs) and genome-wide prediction ability (PA), defined as the correlation between BLUEs and predicted values. The performance of these 4 different second stage models (TS-S1-NoBS, TS-S1-YesBS, TS-S2-NoBS, and TS-S2-YesBS) were evaluated using the extended genomic best linear prediction (EGBLUP) model under 5-fold cross validation (5-fold CV), leave one year out cross validation (LOY-CV) and leave one breeding stage out cross validation (LOBS-CV) scenarios. In the presence of the strong breeding stage effect ignoring the breeding stage in the model resulted in biased BLUEs and overestimated prediction abilities in the 5-fold CV, and underestimated prediction abilities in the LOY-CV and LOBS-CV. These unstable prediction abilities are driven by confounded environmental effects in the BLUEs due to omission of the breeding-stage effect. In contrast, models that accounted for the breeding stage produced more reliable BLUEs and more stable prediction results across all cross-validation scenarios, with TS-S1-YesBS performing best overall. Overall, our findings demonstrate that breeding stage effects mainly arise from differences in growing conditions and must be adequately considered. Therefore, including breeding stage in phenotypic models is critical to obtaining unbiased BLUEs and ensuring accurate genomic prediction and selection decisions.
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.