↓ Skip to main content

The importance of phenotypic data analysis for genomic prediction - a case study comparing different spatial models in rye

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
The importance of phenotypic data analysis for genomic prediction - a case study comparing different spatial models in rye
Published in
BMC Genomics, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-15-646
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela-Maria Bernal-Vasquez, Jens Möhring, Malthe Schmidt, Manfred Schönleben, Chris-Carolin Schön, Hans-Peter Piepho

Abstract

Genomic prediction is becoming a daily tool for plant breeders. It makes use of genotypic information to make predictions used for selection decisions. The accuracy of the predictions depends on the number of genotypes used in the calibration; hence, there is a need of combining data across years. A proper phenotypic analysis is a crucial prerequisite for accurate calibration of genomic prediction procedures. We compared stage-wise approaches to analyse a real dataset of a multi-environment trial (MET) in rye, which was connected between years only through one check, and used different spatial models to obtain better estimates, and thus, improved predictive abilities for genomic prediction. The aims of this study were to assess the advantage of using spatial models for the predictive abilities of genomic prediction, to identify suitable procedures to analyse a MET weakly connected across years using different stage-wise approaches, and to explore genomic prediction as a tool for selection of models for phenotypic data analysis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 2%
Belgium 2 2%
France 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Benin 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 110 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 29%
Student > Master 22 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 8 7%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 16 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 82 68%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Mathematics 6 5%
Unspecified 1 <1%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 21 18%
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 04 August 2014.
All research outputs
#18,375,478
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#8,167
of 10,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,118
of 229,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#124
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,637 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 229,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.