↓ Skip to main content

Factors affecting the accuracy of genomic selection for growth and wood quality traits in an advanced-breeding population of black spruce (Picea mariana)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 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
Factors affecting the accuracy of genomic selection for growth and wood quality traits in an advanced-breeding population of black spruce (Picea mariana)
Published in
BMC Genomics, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-3715-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patrick R.N. Lenz, Jean Beaulieu, Shawn D. Mansfield, Sébastien Clément, Mireille Desponts, Jean Bousquet

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) uses information from genomic signatures consisting of thousands of genetic markers to predict complex traits. As such, GS represents a promising approach to accelerate tree breeding, which is especially relevant for the genetic improvement of boreal conifers characterized by long breeding cycles. In the present study, we tested GS in an advanced-breeding population of the boreal black spruce (Picea mariana [Mill.] BSP) for growth and wood quality traits, and concurrently examined factors affecting GS model accuracy. The study relied on 734 25-year-old trees belonging to 34 full-sib families derived from 27 parents and that were established on two contrasting sites. Genomic profiles were obtained from 4993 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) representative of as many gene loci distributed among the 12 linkage groups common to spruce. GS models were obtained for four growth and wood traits. Validation using independent sets of trees showed that GS model accuracy was high, related to trait heritability and equivalent to that of conventional pedigree-based models. In forward selection, gains per unit of time were three times higher with the GS approach than with conventional selection. In addition, models were also accurate across sites, indicating little genotype-by-environment interaction in the area investigated. Using information from half-sibs instead of full-sibs led to a significant reduction in model accuracy, indicating that the inclusion of relatedness in the model contributed to its higher accuracies. About 500 to 1000 markers were sufficient to obtain GS model accuracy almost equivalent to that obtained with all markers, whether they were well spread across the genome or from a single linkage group, further confirming the implication of relatedness and potential long-range linkage disequilibrium (LD) in the high accuracy estimates obtained. Only slightly higher model accuracy was obtained when using marker subsets that were identified to carry large effects, indicating a minor role for short-range LD in this population. This study supports the integration of GS models in advanced-generation tree breeding programs, given that high genomic prediction accuracy was obtained with a relatively small number of markers due to high relatedness and family structure in the population. In boreal spruce breeding programs and similar ones with long breeding cycles, much larger gain per unit of time can be obtained from genomic selection at an early age than by the conventional approach. GS thus appears highly profitable, especially in the context of forward selection in species which are amenable to mass vegetative propagation of selected stock, such as spruces.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 102 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 21 20%
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 11%
Environmental Science 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 <1%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 22 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,934,072
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,163
of 10,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,383
of 310,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#134
of 227 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,686 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 310,521 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 227 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.