↓ Skip to main content

Accuracies of univariate and multivariate genomic prediction models in African cassava

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics Selection Evolution, December 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
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 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
Accuracies of univariate and multivariate genomic prediction models in African cassava
Published in
Genetics Selection Evolution, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12711-017-0361-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Uche Godfrey Okeke, Deniz Akdemir, Ismail Rabbi, Peter Kulakow, Jean-Luc Jannink

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) promises to accelerate genetic gain in plant breeding programs especially for crop species such as cassava that have long breeding cycles. Practically, to implement GS in cassava breeding, it is necessary to evaluate different GS models and to develop suitable models for an optimized breeding pipeline. In this paper, we compared (1) prediction accuracies from a single-trait (uT) and a multi-trait (MT) mixed model for a single-environment genetic evaluation (Scenario 1), and (2) accuracies from a compound symmetric multi-environment model (uE) parameterized as a univariate multi-kernel model to a multivariate (ME) multi-environment mixed model that accounts for genotype-by-environment interaction for multi-environment genetic evaluation (Scenario 2). For these analyses, we used 16 years of public cassava breeding data for six target cassava traits and a fivefold cross-validation scheme with 10-repeat cycles to assess model prediction accuracies. In Scenario 1, the MT models had higher prediction accuracies than the uT models for all traits and locations analyzed, which amounted to on average a 40% improved prediction accuracy. For Scenario 2, we observed that the ME model had on average (across all locations and traits) a 12% improved prediction accuracy compared to the uE model. We recommend the use of multivariate mixed models (MT and ME) for cassava genetic evaluation. These models may be useful for other plant species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 20%
Researcher 15 16%
Student > Master 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 14 15%
Unknown 24 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 51%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Computer Science 3 3%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 30 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,605,790
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genetics Selection Evolution
#403
of 821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#218,616
of 445,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics Selection Evolution
#11
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 821 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 445,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.