The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Multiple-Trait Genomic Selection Methods Increase Genetic Value Prediction Accuracy
Open accessAbstract
Genetic correlations between quantitative traits measured in many breeding programs are pervasive. These correlations indicate that measurements of one trait carry information on other traits. Current single-trait (univariate) genomic selection does not take advantage of this information. Multivariate genomic selection on multiple traits could accomplish this but has been little explored and tested in practical breeding programs. In this study, three multivariate linear models (i.e., GBLUP, BayesA, and BayesCπ) were presented and compared to univariate models using simulated and real quantitative traits controlled by different genetic architectures. We also extended BayesA with fixed hyperparameters to a full hierarchical model that estimated hyperparameters and BayesCπ to impute missing phenotypes. We found that optimal marker-effect variance priors depended on the genetic architecture of the trait so that estimating them was beneficial. We showed that the prediction accuracy for a low-heritability trait could be significantly increased by multivariate genomic selection when a correlated high-heritability trait was available. Further, multiple-trait genomic selection had higher prediction accuracy than single-trait genomic selection when phenotypes are not available on all individuals and traits. Additional factors affecting the performance of multiple-trait genomic selection were explored.
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
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
Natural variation in Ghd7 is an important regulator of heading date and yield potential in rice
Xue, W., Xing, Y., Weng, X., Zhao, Y., Tang, W., Wang, L., Zhou, H., Yu, S., Xu, C., Li, X., et al. (2008) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.143 · Cited by 1,627
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
Metabolite profiling: from diagnostics to systems biology
Fernie, A. R., Trethewey, R. N., Krotzky, A. J., & Willmitzer, L. (2004) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/nrm1451 · Cited by 844
Multiple trait analysis of genetic mapping for quantitative trait loci.
Jiang, C., & Zeng, Z. B. (1995) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/140.3.1111 · Cited by 827
The Impact of Genetic Architecture on Genome-Wide Evaluation Methods
Daetwyler, H. D., Pong-Wong, R., Villanueva, B., & Woolliams, J. A. (2010) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.110.116855 · Cited by 805
Chesler, E. J., Lu, L., Shou, S., Qu, Y., Gu, J., Wang, J., Hsu, H. C., Mountz, J. D., Baldwin, N. E., Langston, M. A., et al. (2005) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1518 · Cited by 719
Additive Genetic Variability and the Bayesian Alphabet
Gianola, D., de los Campos, G., Hill, W. G., Manfredi, E., & Fernando, R. (2009) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.109.103952 · Cited by 491
Accuracy of Genomic Selection Methods in a Standard Data Set of Loblolly Pine (Pinus taeda L.)
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) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.111.137026 · Cited by 428
Hayes, B. J., Pryce, J., Chamberlain, A. J., Bowman, P. J., & Goddard, M. E. (2010) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1001139 · Cited by 405
Cited by
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
Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes
WANG, H., MISZTAL, I., AGUILAR, I., LEGARRA, A., & MUIR, W. M. (2012) · Genetics Research · doi:10.1017/s0016672312000274 · Cited by 632
Priors in whole-genome regression: the Bayesian alphabet returns
Gianola, D. (2013) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.113.151753 · Cited by 457
Xu, Y., Zhang, X., Li, H., Zheng, H., Zhang, J., Olsen, M. S., Varshney, R. K., Prasanna, B. M., & Qian, Q. (2022) · Molecular Plant · doi:10.1016/j.molp.2022.09.001 · Cited by 363
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Jia, Y., & Jannink, J.-L.
- Venue
- Genetics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-12-01
- Volume
- 192
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1513-1522
- ISSN
- 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-2631
- OpenAlex
- W2157313957
- Cited by
- 498
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 6.20
- 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: Multiple-Trait Genomic Selection Methods Increase Genetic Value Prediction Accuracy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1534/genetics.112.144246
- The paper
- Jia, Y., & Jannink, J.-L. (2012). Multiple-Trait Genomic Selection Methods Increase Genetic Value Prediction Accuracy. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.112.144246
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.
