The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Factors Affecting Accuracy From Genomic Selection in Populations Derived From Multiple Inbred Lines: A Barley Case Study
Open accessAbstract
We compared the accuracies of four genomic-selection prediction methods as affected by marker density, level of linkage disequilibrium (LD), quantitative trait locus (QTL) number, sample size, and level of replication in populations generated from multiple inbred lines. Marker data on 42 two-row spring barley inbred lines were used to simulate high and low LD populations from multiple inbred line crosses: the first included many small full-sib families and the second was derived from five generations of random mating. True breeding values (TBV) were simulated on the basis of 20 or 80 additive QTL. Methods used to derive genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) were random regression best linear unbiased prediction (RR–BLUP), Bayes-B, a Bayesian shrinkage regression method, and BLUP from a mixed model analysis using a relationship matrix calculated from marker data. Using the best methods, accuracies of GEBV were comparable to accuracies from phenotype for predicting TBV without requiring the time and expense of field evaluation. We identified a trade-off between a method's ability to capture marker-QTL LD vs. marker-based relatedness of individuals. The Bayesian shrinkage regression method primarily captured LD, the BLUP methods captured relationships, while Bayes-B captured both. Under most of the study scenarios, mixed-model analysis using a marker-derived relationship matrix (BLUP) was more accurate than methods that directly estimated marker effects, suggesting that relationship information was more valuable than LD information. When markers were in strong LD with large-effect QTL, or when predictions were made on individuals several generations removed from the training data set, however, the ranking of method performance was reversed and BLUP had the lowest accuracy.
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
Linkage disequilibrium in finite populations
Hill, W. G., & Robertson, A. (1968) · Theoretical and Applied Genetics · doi:10.1007/bf01245622 · Cited by 2,035
Cited by
Genomic selection: genome-wide prediction in plant improvement
Desta, Z. A., & Ortiz, R. (2014) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2014.05.006 · Cited by 688
The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle
Habier, D., Tetens, J., Seefried, F.-R., Lichtner, P., & Thaller, G. (2010) · Genetics Selection Evolution · doi:10.1186/1297-9686-42-5 · Cited by 455
Accelerating crop genetic gains with genomic selection
Voss-Fels, K. P., Cooper, M., & Hayes, B. J. (2019) · Theoretical and Applied Genetics · doi:10.1007/s00122-018-3270-8 · Cited by 381
Genomic selection methods for crop improvement: Current status and prospects
Wang, X., Xu, Y., Hu, Z., & Xu, C. (2018) · The Crop Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cj.2018.03.001 · Cited by 325
Prognosis for genetic improvement of yield potential and water-limited yield of major grain crops
Hall, A. J., & Richards, R. A. (2013) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2012.05.014 · Cited by 295
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhong, S., Dekkers, J. C. M., Fernando, R. L., & Jannink, J.-L.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-05-01
- Volume
- 182
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 355-364
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W1973166524
- Cited by
- 422
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Factors Affecting Accuracy From Genomic Selection in Populations Derived From Multiple Inbred Lines: A Barley Case Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1534/genetics.108.098277
- The paper
- Zhong, S., Dekkers, J. C. M., Fernando, R. L., & Jannink, J.-L. (2009). Factors Affecting Accuracy From Genomic Selection in Populations Derived From Multiple Inbred Lines: A Barley Case Study. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.108.098277
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.