Simultaneously accounting for population structure, genotype by environment interaction, and spatial variation in marker–trait associations in sugarcaneThis article is one of a selection of papers from the conference “Exploiting Genome-wide Association in Oilseed Brassicas: a model for genetic improvement of major OECD crops for sustainable farming”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few association mapping studies have simultaneously accounted for population structure, genotype by environment interaction (GEI), and spatial variation. In this sugarcane association mapping study we tested models accounting for these factors and identified the impact that each model component had on the list of markers declared as being significantly associated with traits. About 480 genotypes were evaluated for cane yield and sugar content at three sites and scored with DArT markers. A mixed model was applied in analysis of the data to simultaneously account for the impacts of population structure, GEI, and spatial variation within a trial. Two forms of the DArT marker data were used in the analysis: the standard discrete data (0, 1) and a continuous DArT score, which is related to the marker dosage. A large number of markers were significantly associated with cane yield and sugar content. However, failure to account for population structure, GEI, and (or) spatial variation produced both type I and type II errors, which on the one hand substantially inflated the number of significant markers identified (especially true for failing to account for GEI) and on the other hand resulted in failure to detect markers that could be associated with cane yield or sugar content (especially when failing to account for population structure). We concluded that association mapping based on trials from one site or analysis that failed to account for GEI would produce many trial-specific associated markers that would have low value in breeding programs.
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 | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".