Cited by 157Genetic and phenotypic traits in livestockGenetics and Plant BreedingGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals

Bayesian Genomic Prediction with Genotype × Environment Interaction Kernel Models

Open access
Cuevas, Jaime, Crossa, José, Montesinos-López, Osval A, Burgueño, Juan, Pérez-Rodríguez, Paulino, de los Campos, Gustavo·2017·G3 Genes Genomes Genetics

Abstract

The phenomenon of genotype × environment (G × E) interaction in plant breeding decreases selection accuracy, thereby negatively affecting genetic gains. Several genomic prediction models incorporating G × E have been recently developed and used in genomic selection of plant breeding programs. Genomic prediction models for assessing multi-environment G × E interaction are extensions of a single-environment model, and have advantages and limitations. In this study, we propose two multi-environment Bayesian genomic models: the first model considers genetic effects [Formula: see text] that can be assessed by the Kronecker product of variance-covariance matrices of genetic correlations between environments and genomic kernels through markers under two linear kernel methods, linear (genomic best linear unbiased predictors, GBLUP) and Gaussian (Gaussian kernel, GK). The other model has the same genetic component as the first model [Formula: see text] plus an extra component, F: , that captures random effects between environments that were not captured by the random effects [Formula: see text] We used five CIMMYT data sets (one maize and four wheat) that were previously used in different studies. Results show that models with G × E always have superior prediction ability than single-environment models, and the higher prediction ability of multi-environment models with [Formula: see text] over the multi-environment model with only u occurred 85% of the time with GBLUP and 45% of the time with GK across the five data sets. The latter result indicated that including the random effect f is still beneficial for increasing prediction ability after adjusting by the random effect [Formula: see text].

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1534/g3.116.035584

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • G × E model has high significance rates and better genomic predictions compared to other models in 4 wheat and 1 maize cultivars and CIMMYT data bank.

    “These methods are applied on 4 wheat and 1 maize cultivars and CIMMYT data bank revealed that the G × E model have high significance rates and better genomic predictions as compared to other models [160].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 32 · Cited by 157

Authors
Cuevas, J., Crossa, J., Montesinos-López, O. A., Burgueño, J., Pérez-Rodríguez, P., & de los Campos, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Quintana Roo (MX)
  • Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz Y Trigo (MX)
  • Universidad de Colima (MX)
  • Colegio de Postgraduados, C. P. 56230 Montecillos, Edo. de México, México
  • Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824
Corresponding author
Crossa, José
Venue
G3 Genes Genomes Genetics
Published
2017-01-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
41-53
ISSN
2160-1836 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2540923435
Cited by
157
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 7
FWCI
11.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • G3 Genes Genomes Genetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
gene-environment interaction, Kronecker product covariance structure, genomic best linear unbiased prediction, Gaussian kernel, genomic selection, maize, wheat, prediction accuracy
MeSH terms
Plant Breeding, Bayes Theorem, Zea mays, Genotype, Models, Genetic, Selection, Genetic, Triticum, Genome, Plant, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, 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