Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42619371›Full record

ArticleThe plant genome2026

Genomic prediction in quinoa across contrasting environments using statistical and machine learning models.

Clara S Stanschewski, Mark Warmington, Irfan Afzal, Elodie Rey, Gabriele Fiene, Evan Craine, Kevin Murphy, Mark Tester, Jesse Poland

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The plant genome, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Clara S StanschewskiPlant Science Program, Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3596-9108
Mark WarmingtonDepartment of Primary Industries and Regional Development, Agriculture and Food Division, Kununurra, Western Australia, Australia.
Irfan AfzalDepartment of Agronomy, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Faisalabad, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5942-7672
Elodie ReyPlant Science Program, Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.
Gabriele FienePlant Science Program, Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.
Evan CraineDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6252-8973
Kevin MurphyDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8982-3641
Mark TesterPlant Science Program, Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5085-8801
Jesse PolandPlant Science Program, Biological and Environmental Science and Engineering Division, King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST), Thuwal, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7856-1399

Funding

King Abdullah University of Science and Technology baseline fundingKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology CRG5-2966National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship 1842493United States Department of Agriculture 2016-680004-2470
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) is gaining global importance for its nutritional value and adaptability; however, breeding progress remains limited. Genomic selection (GS), combined with rapid generation cycles, offers a strategy to accelerate genetic improvement. We conducted whole-genome resequencing of 610 accessions and present the first evaluation of genomic prediction in quinoa evaluated across six field trials in Australia and Pakistan for seven phenological and yield-related traits. Using ∼1.8 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms, we compared four models-genomic best linear unbiased prediction, reproducing kernel Hilbert space, BayesC, and light gradient boosting machine-for genotype ranking under four cross-validation schemes: predicting new genotypes (CV1), sparse testing (CV2), leave-one-location-year-out (CV0), and across locations. Model performance was evaluated using Pearson's correlation for overall accuracy and normalized discounted cumulative gain (NDCG@10) for ranking top performers. The four models were similar, with no method dominating across traits. NDCG@10 scores revealed that predictions remained useful for selecting superior genotypes even for difficult traits. Prediction accuracy was strongly associated with heritability and trait correlations across and within- location environments. Accuracy was highest for developmental traits and lowest for seed yield, while seed traits showed location-specific responses with higher accuracy in Australia. These findings support GS as a promising tool for quinoa breeding and provide benchmarks for global implementation.

Indexed as

Chenopodium quinoaGenome, PlantMachine LearningAustraliaBoosting Machine Learning AlgorithmsEnvironmentGenomicsGenotypeModels, GeneticPhenotypePlant BreedingPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning Models

Identifiers

PMID42619371
PMCPMC13492584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.