The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Training set optimization under population structure in genomic selection
Open accessAbstract
KEY MESSAGE: Population structure must be evaluated before optimization of the training set population. Maximizing the phenotypic variance captured by the training set is important for optimal performance. The optimization of the training set (TRS) in genomic selection has received much interest in both animal and plant breeding, because it is critical to the accuracy of the prediction models. In this study, five different TRS sampling algorithms, stratified sampling, mean of the coefficient of determination (CDmean), mean of predictor error variance (PEVmean), stratified CDmean (StratCDmean) and random sampling, were evaluated for prediction accuracy in the presence of different levels of population structure. In the presence of population structure, the most phenotypic variation captured by a sampling method in the TRS is desirable. The wheat dataset showed mild population structure, and CDmean and stratified CDmean methods showed the highest accuracies for all the traits except for test weight and heading date. The rice dataset had strong population structure and the approach based on stratified sampling showed the highest accuracies for all traits. In general, CDmean minimized the relationship between genotypes in the TRS, maximizing the relationship between TRS and the test set. This makes it suitable as an optimization criterion for long-term selection. Our results indicated that the best selection criterion used to optimize the TRS seems to depend on the interaction of trait architecture and population structure.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data Via the EM Algorithm
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x · Cited by 50,444
Introduction to Quantitative Genetics.
Edwards, A. W. F., & Falconer, D. S. (1982) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529912 · Cited by 21,447
Prediction of Total Genetic Value Using Genome-Wide Dense Marker Maps
Meuwissen, T. H. E., Hayes, B. J., & Goddard, M. E. (2001) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/157.4.1819 · Cited by 7,917
Efficient Methods to Compute Genomic Predictions
VanRaden, P. M. (2008) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0980 · Cited by 6,050
Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal
PATTERSON, H. D., & THOMPSON, R. (1971) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/58.3.545 · Cited by 4,058
Introduction to Quantitative Genetics
G., J.-M., & Falconer, D. S. (1962) · Population (French Edition) · doi:10.2307/1525780 · Cited by 3,705
Best Linear Unbiased Estimation and Prediction under a Selection Model
Henderson, C. R. (1975) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529430 · Cited by 2,497
Ridge Regression and Other Kernels for Genomic Selection with R Package rrBLUP
Endelman, J. B. (2011) · The Plant Genome · doi:10.3835/plantgenome2011.08.0024 · Cited by 2,094
Genomic Selection for Crop Improvement
Heffner, E. L., Sorrells, M. E., & Jannink, J. (2009) · Crop Science · doi:10.2135/cropsci2008.08.0512 · Cited by 1,652
Self-citation
Cited by
Genomic Selection in Plant Breeding: Methods, Models, and Perspectives
Crossa, J., Pérez-Rodríguez, P., Cuevas, J., Montesinos-López, O., Jarquín, D., de los Campos, G., Burgueño, J., González-Camacho, J. M., Pérez-Elizalde, S., Beyene, Y., et al. (2017) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2017.08.011 · Cited by 1,839
Atta, K., Mondal, S., Gorai, S., Singh, A. P., Kumari, A., Ghosh, T., Roy, A., Hembram, S., Gaikwad, D. J., Mondal, S., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2023.1241736 · Cited by 523
Enhancing Genetic Gain through Genomic Selection: From Livestock to Plants
Xu, Y., Liu, X., Fu, J., Wang, H., Wang, J., Huang, C., Prasanna, B. M., Olsen, M. S., Wang, G., & Zhang, A. (2020) · Plant Communications · doi:10.1016/j.xplc.2019.100005 · Cited by 281
van Eeuwijk, F. A., Bustos-Korts, D., Millet, E. J., Boer, M. P., Kruijer, W., Thompson, A., Malosetti, M., Iwata, H., Quiroz, R., Kuppe, C., et al. (2019) · Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.06.018 · Cited by 217
Deep learning for predicting complex traits in spring wheat breeding program
Sandhu, K. S., Lozada, D. N., Zhang, Z., Pumphrey, M. O., & Carter, A. H. (2021) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.613325 · Cited by 147
Metadata
- Authors
- Isidro, J., Jannink, J.-L., Akdemir, D., Poland, J., Heslot, N., & Sorrells, M. E.
- Venue
- Theoretical and Applied Genetics
- Published
- 2014-11-01
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 145-158
- ISSN
- 0040-5752 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-2242
- OpenAlex
- W1995125171
- Cited by
- 381
- References
- 61
- FWCI
- 11.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Training set optimization under population structure in genomic selection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00122-014-2418-4
- The paper
- Isidro, J., Jannink, J.-L., Akdemir, D., Poland, J., Heslot, N., & Sorrells, M. E. (2015). Training set optimization under population structure in genomic selection. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-014-2418-4
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
