Efficiency of quantitative trait loci‐assisted selection in correlations between identified and residual genotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study quantified the efficiency of quantitative traits loci (QTL)‐assisted selection in the presence of correlations ( ρ qr ) between identified ( q ) and residual ( r ) genotypes. Two levels of heritability (h 2 = 0.1 or 0.3), two levels of correlation ( ρ qr = −0.3 or 0.3) and five proportions of genetic variance explained by QTL detected ( = 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 or 0.8) were combined to give 20 scenarios in all. QTL‐assisted selection placed a larger index weight on the QTL genotype than on the phenotype in 17 of 20 scenarios, yielding a greater response in the QTL genotype than in residual genotype. Although QTL‐assisted selection was superior to phenotypic selection in all 20 scenarios, QTL‐assisted selection showed a greater advantage over phenotypic selection when ρ qr was positive than when ρ qr was negative. Doubling the proportion of detected QTL variance to genetic variance does not result in a twofold increase in the genetic response to QTL‐assisted selection, suggesting that economic returns diminish for each additional cost of detecting extra QTL. The correlation between q and r would make the interpretation (or prediction) of QTL effects difficult and QTL‐assisted selection strategy must consider the joint effect of q and r . When q and r are not independent, a failure to account for ρ qr in QTL‐assisted selection would underestimate the genetic responses when ρ qr is positive, but overestimate the genetic responses when ρ qr is negative. Estimation bias is more serious at high heritability than at low heritability. Accounting for ρ qr would improve the efficiency of QTL‐assisted selection and the accuracy of QTL detection. The generalized procedure developed in this study allows for quantifying the efficiency of QTL‐assisted selection and assessing estimation bias for ignoring the correlation between q and r for all possible combinations of h 2 , ρ qr , and .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".