The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Accuracy of Genomic Selection Methods in a Standard Data Set of Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.)
Open accessAbstract
Genomic selection can increase genetic gain per generation through early selection. Genomic selection is expected to be particularly valuable for traits that are costly to phenotype and expressed late in the life cycle of long-lived species. Alternative approaches to genomic selection prediction models may perform differently for traits with distinct genetic properties. Here the performance of four different original methods of genomic selection that differ with respect to assumptions regarding distribution of marker effects, including (i) ridge regression–best linear unbiased prediction (RR–BLUP), (ii) Bayes A, (iii) Bayes Cπ, and (iv) Bayesian LASSO are presented. In addition, a modified RR–BLUP (RR–BLUP B) that utilizes a selected subset of markers was evaluated. The accuracy of these methods was compared across 17 traits with distinct heritabilities and genetic architectures, including growth, development, and disease-resistance properties, measured in a Pinus taeda (loblolly pine) training population of 951 individuals genotyped with 4853 SNPs. The predictive ability of the methods was evaluated using a 10-fold, cross-validation approach, and differed only marginally for most method/trait combinations. Interestingly, for fusiform rust disease-resistance traits, Bayes Cπ, Bayes A, and RR–BLUB B had higher predictive ability than RR–BLUP and Bayesian LASSO. Fusiform rust is controlled by few genes of large effect. A limitation of RR–BLUP is the assumption of equal contribution of all markers to the observed variation. However, RR-BLUP B performed equally well as the Bayesian approaches.The genotypic and phenotypic data used in this study are publically available for comparative analysis of genomic selection prediction models.
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
A Study of Cross-Validation and Bootstrap for Accuracy Estimation and Model Selection
Kohavi, R. (1995) · Zenodo · doi:10.5281/zenodo.19712698 · Cited by 10,909
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
XV.—The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance.
Fisher, R. A. (1919) · Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh · doi:10.1017/s0080456800012163 · Cited by 4,387
Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges
Hayes, B. J., Bowman, P. J., Chamberlain, A. J., & Goddard, M. E. (2009) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1646 · Cited by 1,795
Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection
Habier, D., Fernando, R. L., Kizilkaya, K., & Garrick, D. J. (2011) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-12-186 · Cited by 1,224
Self-citationLikelihood, Bayesian, and MCMC Methods in Quantitative Genetics
Sorensen, D., & Gianola, D. (2002) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/b98952 · Cited by 903
Crossa, J., Campos, G. D. L., Pérez, P., Gianola, D., Burgueño, J., Araus, J. L., Makumbi, D., Singh, R. P., Dreisigacker, S., Yan, J., et al. (2010) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.110.118521 · Cited by 798
The correlation between relatives on the supposition of mendelian inheritance
Kempthorne, O. (1968) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 697
Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses
Garrick, D. J., Taylor, J. F., & Fernando, R. L. (2009) · Genetics Selection Evolution · doi:10.1186/1297-9686-41-55 · Cited by 653
Self-citationPredicting Quantitative Traits With Regression Models for Dense Molecular Markers and Pedigree
de los Campos, G., Naya, H., Gianola, D., Crossa, J., Legarra, A., Manfredi, E., Weigel, K., & Cotes, J. M. (2009) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.109.101501 · Cited by 599
Cited by
Whole-Genome Regression and Prediction Methods Applied to Plant and Animal Breeding
de los Campos, G., Hickey, J. M., Pong-Wong, R., Daetwyler, H. D., & Calus, M. P. L. (2013) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.112.143313 · Cited by 893
Cobb, J. N., DeClerck, G., Greenberg, A., Clark, R., & McCouch, S. (2013) · Theoretical and Applied Genetics · doi:10.1007/s00122-013-2066-0 · Cited by 666
Multiple-Trait Genomic Selection Methods Increase Genetic Value Prediction Accuracy
Jia, Y., & Jannink, J.-L. (2012) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.112.144246 · Cited by 498
Daetwyler, H. D., Calus, M. P. L., Pong-Wong, R., de los Campos, G., & Hickey, J. M. (2013) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.112.147983 · Cited by 455
A deep convolutional neural network approach for predicting phenotypes from genotypes
Ma, W., Qiu, Z., Song, J., Li, J., Cheng, Q., Zhai, J., & Ma, C. (2018) · Planta · doi:10.1007/s00425-018-2976-9 · Cited by 341
Metadata
- Authors
- Resende, M. F. R., Muñoz, P., Resende, M. D. V., Garrick, D. J., Fernando, R. L., Davis, J. M., Jokela, E. J., Martin, T. A., Peter, G. F., & Kirst, M.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-04-01
- Volume
- 190
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1503-1510
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W2166033750
- Cited by
- 428
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 19.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Accuracy of Genomic Selection Methods in a Standard Data Set of Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1534/genetics.111.137026
- The paper
- Resende, M. F. R., Muñoz, P., Resende, M. D. V., Garrick, D. J., Fernando, R. L., Davis, J. M., Jokela, E. J., Martin, T. A., Peter, G. F., & Kirst, M. (2012). Accuracy of Genomic Selection Methods in a Standard Data Set of Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.). Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.111.137026
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.