The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prospects for Genomewide Selection for Quantitative Traits in Maize
Abstract
The availability of cheap and abundant molecular markers in maize (Zea mays L.) has allowed breeders to ask how molecular markers may best be used to achieve breeding progress, without conditioning the question on how breeding has traditionally been done. Genomewide selection refers to marker‐based selection without first identifying a subset of markers with significant effects. Our objectives were to assess the response due to genomewide selection compared with marker‐assisted recurrent selection (MARS) and to determine the extent to which phenotyping can be minimized and genotyping maximized in genomewide selection. We simulated genomewide selection by evaluating doubled haploids for testcross performance in Cycle 0, followed by two cycles of selection based on markers. Individuals were genotyped for N M markers, and breeding values associated with each of the N M markers were predicted and were all used in genomewide selection. We found that across different numbers of quantitative trait loci (20, 40, and 100) and levels of heritability, the response to genomewide selection was 18 to 43% larger than the response to MARS. Responses to selection were maintained when the number of doubled haploids phenotyped and genotyped in Cycle 0 was reduced and the number of plants genotyped in Cycles 1 and 2 was increased. Such schemes that minimize phenotyping and maximize genotyping would be feasible only if the cost per marker data point is reduced to about 2 cents. The convenient but incorrect assumption of equal marker variances led to only a minimal loss in the response to genomewide selection. We conclude that genomewide selection, as a brute‐force and black‐box procedure that exploits cheap and abundant molecular markers, is superior to MARS in maize.
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
The Genetic Architecture of Quantitative Traits
Mackay, T. F. C. (2001) · Annual Review of Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.35.102401.090633 · Cited by 1,106
Cited by
Ridge Regression and Other Kernels for Genomic Selection with R Package rrBLUP
Endelman, J. B. (2011) · The Plant Genome · doi:10.3835/plantgenome2011.08.0024 · Cited by 2,094
Genomic Selection in Plant Breeding: Methods, Models, and Perspectives
Crossa, J., Pérez-Rodríguez, P., Cuevas, J., Montesinos-López, O., Jarquín, D., de los Campos, G., Burgueño, J., González-Camacho, J. M., Pérez-Elizalde, S., Beyene, Y., et al. (2017) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2017.08.011 · Cited by 1,839
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
Lu, F., Lipka, A. E., Glaubitz, J., Elshire, R., Cherney, J. H., Casler, M. D., Buckler, E. S., & Costich, D. E. (2013) · PLoS Genetics · doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1003215 · Cited by 659
Burgueño, J., de los Campos, G., Weigel, K., & Crossa, J. (2012) · Crop Science · doi:10.2135/cropsci2011.06.0299 · Cited by 601
Metadata
- Authors
- Bernardo, R., & Yu, J.
- Venue
- Crop Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-05
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1082-1090
- ISSN
- 0011-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1435-0653
- OpenAlex
- W2001675230
- Cited by
- 868
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Prospects for Genomewide Selection for Quantitative Traits in Maize. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2135/cropsci2006.11.0690
- The paper
- Bernardo, R., & Yu, J. (2007). Prospects for Genomewide Selection for Quantitative Traits in Maize. Crop Science. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.11.0690
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.