MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Genomic Prediction of Biomass Yield in Two Selection Cycles of a Tetraploid Alfalfa Breeding Population

2015· article· en· W2244479535 on OpenAlexaff
Xuehui Li, Yanling Wei, Ananta Acharya, Julie Hansen, Jamie Crawford, D. R. Viands, R. Michaud, Annie Claessens, E. Charles Brummer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Plant Genome · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyGenetic gainPopulationSelection (genetic algorithm)Genomic selectionBiomass (ecology)AgronomyBiotechnologyGenetic variationSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotypeGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is a widely planted perennial forage legume grown throughout temperate and dry subtropical regions in the world. Long breeding cycles limit genetic improvement of alfalfa, particularly for complex traits such as biomass yield. Genomic selection (GS), based on predicted breeding values obtained using genome-wide molecular markers, could enhance breeding efficiency in terms of gain per unit time and cost. In this study, we genotyped tetraploid alfalfa plants that had previously been evaluated for yield during two cycles of phenotypic selection using genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS). We then developed prediction equations using yield data from three locations. Approximately 10,000 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers were used for GS modeling. The genomic prediction accuracy of total biomass yield ranged from 0.34 to 0.51 for the Cycle 0 population and from 0.21 to 0.66 for the Cycle 1 population, depending on the location. The GS model developed using Cycle 0 as the training population in predicting total biomass yield in Cycle 1 resulted in accuracies up to 0.40. Both genotype × environment interaction and the number of harvests and years used to generate yield phenotypes had effects on prediction accuracy across generations and locations, Based on our results, the selection efficiency per unit time for GS is higher than phenotypic selection, although accuracies will likely decline across multiple selection cycles. This study provided evidence that GS can accelerate genetic gain in alfalfa for biomass yield.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations117
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Plant GenomeSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207