↓ Skip to main content

Performance of genomic prediction within and across generations in maritime pine

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Performance of genomic prediction within and across generations in maritime pine
Published in
BMC Genomics, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-016-2879-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jérôme Bartholomé, Joost Van Heerwaarden, Fikret Isik, Christophe Boury, Marjorie Vidal, Christophe Plomion, Laurent Bouffier

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) is a promising approach for decreasing breeding cycle length in forest trees. Assessment of progeny performance and of the prediction accuracy of GS models over generations is therefore a key issue. A reference population of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) with an estimated effective inbreeding population size (status number) of 25 was first selected with simulated data. This reference population (n = 818) covered three generations (G0, G1 and G2) and was genotyped with 4436 single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. We evaluated the effects on prediction accuracy of both the relatedness between the calibration and validation sets and validation on the basis of progeny performance. Pedigree-based (best linear unbiased prediction, ABLUP) and marker-based (genomic BLUP and Bayesian LASSO) models were used to predict breeding values for three different traits: circumference, height and stem straightness. On average, the ABLUP model outperformed genomic prediction models, with a maximum difference in prediction accuracies of 0.12, depending on the trait and the validation method. A mean difference in prediction accuracy of 0.17 was found between validation methods differing in terms of relatedness. Including the progenitors in the calibration set reduced this difference in prediction accuracy to 0.03. When only genotypes from the G0 and G1 generations were used in the calibration set and genotypes from G2 were used in the validation set (progeny validation), prediction accuracies ranged from 0.70 to 0.85. This study suggests that the training of prediction models on parental populations can predict the genetic merit of the progeny with high accuracy: an encouraging result for the implementation of GS in the maritime pine breeding program.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 45 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 10%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 21 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,381,002
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,701
of 10,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,583
of 355,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#176
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,668 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 355,869 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.