Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 698

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Genomic Selection in Plant Breeding: A Comparison of Models

Heslot, Nicolas, Yang, Hsiao‐Pei, Sorrells, Mark E., Jannink, Jean‐Luc·2012·Crop Science

Abstract

Simulation and empirical studies of genomic selection (GS) show accuracies sufficient to generate rapid genetic gains. However, with the increased popularity of GS approaches, numerous models have been proposed and no comparative analysis is available to identify the most promising ones. Using eight wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh., and maize (Zea mays L.) datasets, the predictive ability of currently available GS models along with several machine learning methods was evaluated by comparing accuracies, the genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs), and the marker effects for each model. While a similar level of accuracy was observed for many models, the level of overfitting varied widely as did the computation time and the distribution of marker effect estimates. Our comparisons suggested that GS in plant breeding programs could be based on a reduced set of models such as the Bayesian Lasso, weighted Bayesian shrinkage regression (wBSR, a fast version of BayesB), and random forest (RF) (a machine learning method that could capture nonadditive effects). Linear combinations of different models were tested as well as bagging and boosting methods, but they did not improve accuracy. This study also showed large differences in accuracy between subpopulations within a dataset that could not always be explained by differences in phenotypic variance and size. The broad diversity of empirical datasets tested here adds evidence that GS could increase genetic gain per unit of time and cost.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2135/cropsci2011.06.0297

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 55 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Barley Coordinated Agriculture Project, 2011, Introduction to project
  2. 10.1023/A:1018046112532 · doi:10.1023/a:1018046112532 · Paper page
  3. 10.1023/A:1018054314350 · doi:10.1023/a:1018054314350 · Paper page
  4. Dimitriadou E., 2011, e1071: Misc functions of the department of statistics (e1071), TU Wien. R package version 1.6
  5. Drucker H., 1997, Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Machine Learning, 107
  6. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), 2007, Web Service VNAT. Study of the natural variation of Arabidopsis thaliana

Cited by

See all 698

Metadata

Authors
Heslot, N., Yang, H., Sorrells, M. E., & Jannink, J.
Venue
Crop Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-01
Volume
52
Issue
1
Pages
146-160
ISSN
  • 0011-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-0653
OpenAlex
W2148306906
Cited by
698
References
55
FWCI
17.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Funders
  • USDA-NIFA-AFRI (2009-65300-05661, 2011-68002-30029)
  • USDA-NIFA National Research Initiative CAP (2005-05130)
  • Hatch (149-402)
  • Microsoft Corporation

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: Genomic Selection in Plant Breeding: A Comparison of Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2135/cropsci2011.06.0297
The paper
Heslot, N., Yang, H., Sorrells, M. E., & Jannink, J. (2012). Genomic Selection in Plant Breeding: A Comparison of Models. Crop Science. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2011.06.0297

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.