Cited by 48Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetics and Plant BreedingGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

Genomic selection in multi‐environment plant breeding trials using a factor analytic linear mixed model

Tolhurst, Daniel J., Mathews, Ky L., Smith, Alison B., Cullis, Brian R.·2019·Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) is a statistical and breeding methodology designed to improve genetic gain. It has proven to be successful in animal breeding; however, key points of difference have not been fully considered in the transfer of GS from animal to plant breeding. In plant breeding, individuals (varieties) are typically evaluated across a number of locations in multiple years (environments) in formally designed comparative experiments, called multi-environment trials (METs). The design structure of individual trials can be complex and needs to be modelled appropriately. Another key feature of MET data sets is the presence of variety by environment interaction (VEI), that is the differential response of varieties to a change in environment. In this paper, a single-step factor analytic linear mixed model is developed for plant breeding MET data sets that incorporates molecular marker data, appropriately accommodates non-genetic sources of variation within trials and models VEI. A recently developed set of selection tools, which are natural derivatives of factor analytic models, are used to facilitate GS for a motivating data set from an Australian plant breeding company. The power and versatility of these tools is demonstrated for the variety by environment and marker by environment effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jbg.12404

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Factor analytic models are a more parsimonious alternative to fully unstructured models that typically cannot be fitted on datasets with more than a few environments.

    “They are a more parsimonious alternative to fully unstructured models that typically cannot be fitted on datasets with more than a few environments (Butler et al. , 2023; Tolhurst et al. , 2019).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tolhurst, D. J., Mathews, K. L., Smith, A. B., & Cullis, B. R.
Affiliations
University of Wollongong (AU)
Corresponding author
Tolhurst, Daniel J.
Venue
Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-06-27
Volume
136
Issue
4
Pages
279-300
ISSN
  • 0044-3581 (ISSN-L)
  • 0931-2668
  • 1439-0388
OpenAlex
W2954577473
Cited by
48
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2
FWCI
3.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetics and Plant Breeding
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Keywords
genomic selection, multi-environment trials, plant breeding, variety-by-environment interaction, single-step genomic prediction, genetic gain, selection tools
MeSH terms
Plant Breeding, Environment, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Models, Genetic, Selection, Genetic, Models, Statistical, Linear Models, Genomics, Gene-Environment Interaction

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