ArticleTAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik2026
Genomic selection in timothy (Phleum pratense L.): a comprehensive evaluation of prediction models, multi-trait strategies, and forward validation across Norwegian environments.
Article in TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
key messageThis study presents a comprehensive evaluation of genomic selection (GS) in timothy (Phleum pratense L.), comparing nine prediction models across yield and quality traits at two Norwegian locations. Forward validation with independent full-sib (FS2) families revealed a substantial generalization gap, highlighting the need for realistic accuracy assessment in polyploid forage breeding. Timothy (Phleum pratense L.) is the most important forage grass in Northern Europe, yet genomic selection has not been systematically evaluated in this hexaploid species. We assessed 889 FS2-families originating from biparental crosses among 49 cultivars/populations. The FS2-families were genotyped with 30,698 SNP markers derived from genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) and field tested for three harvest years at a highland and a lowland continental location in Southern Norway. Nine genomic prediction models were compared for six yield traits (dry matter yield per cut and total) and six quality traits (protein, digestibility, and fiber fractions) across three cuts/year. Within-training cross-validation accuracies were moderate to high (mean r = 0.62), with Random Forest and SVR consistently outperforming GBLUP. However, forward validation using 213 independent FS2-families revealed dramatically lower accuracies (mean r = 0.16), with only 16 of 30 trait-dataset combinations reaching statistical significance (p < 0.05). Genomic heritabilities (GREML), estimated across environments, ranged from near zero for the quality traits to 0.55 for the yield traits. Multi-trait models improved accuracy by 3-5% over single-trait approaches, while FS2 families-by-environment interaction models with Random Forest achieved the highest within-training accuracy (mean r = 0.71). Marker density analysis showed accuracy plateauing at approximately 15000 SNPs. Genetic correlations among the yield component traits were estimated by multi-trait REML; correlations among the quality traits could not be estimated reliably because their genomic heritabilities were low. A multi-trait selection index identified top-performing FS2-families for further crossing recommendations. These results provide a benchmark for GS implementation in hexaploid timothy and emphasize that cross-validation substantially overestimates prediction accuracy for truly independent material.
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.