Evaluating the accuracy of genomic prediction of growth and wood traits in two <i>Eucalyptus</i> species and their F <sub>1</sub> hybrids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Genomic prediction is a genomics assisted breeding methodology that can increase genetic gains by accelerating the breeding cycle and potentially improving the accuracy of breeding values. In this study, we used 41,304 informative SNPs genotyped in a Eucalyptus breeding population involving 90 E.grandis and 78 E.urophylla parents and their 949 F 1 hybrids to develop genomic prediction models for eight phenotypic traits - basic density and pulp yield, circumference at breast height and height and tree volume scored at age thee and six years. Based on different genomic prediction methods we assessed the impact of the composition and size of the training/validation sets and the number and genomic location of SNPs on the predictive ability (PA). Results Heritabilities estimated using the realized genomic relationship matrix (GRM) were considerably higher than estimates based on the expected pedigree, mainly due to inconsistencies in the expected pedigree that were readily corrected by the GRM. Moreover, GRM more precisely capture Mendelian sampling among related individuals, such that the genetic covariance was based on the actual proportion of the genome shared between individuals. PA improved considerably when increasing the size of the training set and by enhancing relatedness to the validation set. Prediction models trained on pure species parents could not predict well in F 1 hybrids, indicating that model training has to be carried out in hybrid populations if one is to predict in hybrid selection candidates. The different genomic prediction methods provided similar results for all traits, therefore GBLUP or rrBLUP represents better compromises between computational time and prediction efficiency. Only slight improvement was observed in PA when more than 5,000 SNPs were used for all traits. Using SNPs in intergenic regions provided slightly better PA than using SNPs sampled exclusively in genic regions. Conclusions Effects of training set size and composition and number of SNPs used are the most important factors for model prediction rather than prediction method and the genomic location of SNPs. Furthermore, training the prediction model on pure parental species provide limited ability to predict traits in interspecific hybrids. Our results provide additional promising perspectives for the implementation of genomic prediction in Eucalyptus 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".