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
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.
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
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Modern Applied Statistics with S
Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2 · Cited by 24,305
Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators
Hornik, K., Stinchcombe, M., & White, H. (1989) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/0893-6080(89)90020-8 · Cited by 21,728
Regularization and Variable Selection Via the Elastic Net
Zou, H., & Hastie, T. (2005) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9868.2005.00503.x · Cited by 20,957
Regularization Paths for Generalized Linear Models via Coordinate Descent
Friedman, J., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v033.i01 · Cited by 19,927
Classification and Regression by randomForest
Liaw, A. I., & Wiener, M. C. (2007) · Cited by 18,594
Breiman, L. (1996) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/bf00058655 · Cited by 16,325
A tutorial on support vector regression
Smola, A. J., & Schölkopf, B. (2004) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1023/b:stco.0000035301.49549.88 · Cited by 13,387
Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators
HornikK., StinchcombeM., & WhiteH. (1989) · Neural Networks · doi:10.5555/70405.70408 · Cited by 9,081
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Barley Coordinated Agriculture Project, 2011, Introduction to project
- 10.1023/A:1018046112532 · doi:10.1023/a:1018046112532 · Paper page
- 10.1023/A:1018054314350 · doi:10.1023/a:1018054314350 · Paper page
- Dimitriadou E., 2011, e1071: Misc functions of the department of statistics (e1071), TU Wien. R package version 1.6
- Drucker H., 1997, Proc. 14th Int. Conf. Machine Learning, 107
- Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), 2007, Web Service VNAT. Study of the natural variation of Arabidopsis thaliana
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
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
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
A reaction norm model for genomic selection using high-dimensional genomic and environmental data
Jarquín, D., Crossa, J., Lacaze, X., Du Cheyron, P., Daucourt, J., Lorgeou, J., Piraux, F., Guerreiro, L., Pérez, P., Calus, M., et al. (2014) · Theoretical and Applied Genetics · doi:10.1007/s00122-013-2243-1 · Cited by 687
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.