Genomic Selection for Crop Improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Despite important strides in marker technologies, the use of marker‐assisted selection has stagnated for the improvement of quantitative traits. Biparental mating designs for the detection of loci affecting these traits (quantitative trait loci [QTL]) impede their application, and the statistical methods used are ill‐suited to the traits' polygenic nature. Genomic selection (GS) has been proposed to address these deficiencies. Genomic selection predicts the breeding values of lines in a population by analyzing their phenotypes and high‐density marker scores. A key to the success of GS is that it incorporates all marker information in the prediction model, thereby avoiding biased marker effect estimates and capturing more of the variation due to small‐effect QTL. In simulations, the correlation between true breeding value and the genomic estimated breeding value has reached levels of 0.85 even for polygenic low heritability traits. This level of accuracy is sufficient to consider selecting for agronomic performance using marker information alone. Such selection would substantially accelerate the breeding cycle, enhancing gains per unit time. It would dramatically change the role of phenotyping, which would then serve to update prediction models and no longer to select lines. While research to date shows the exceptional promise of GS, work remains to be done to validate it empirically and to incorporate it into breeding schemes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".