Exploiting Wild Relatives for Genomics-assisted Breeding of Perennial Crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perennial crops are vital contributors to global food production and nutrition. However, the breeding of new perennial crops is an expensive and time-consuming process due to the large size and lengthy juvenile phase of many species. Genomics provides a valuable tool for improving the efficiency of breeding by allowing progeny possessing a trait of interest to be selected at the seed or seedling stage through marker-assisted selection (MAS). The benefits of MAS to a breeder are greatest when the targeted species takes a long time to reach maturity and is expensive to grow and maintain. Thus, MAS holds particular promise in perennials since they are often costly and time-consuming to grow to maturity and evaluate. Well-characterized germplasm that breeders can tap into for improving perennials is often limited in genetic diversity. Wild relatives are a largely untapped source of desirable traits including disease resistance, fruit quality, and rootstock characteristics. This review focuses on the use of genomics-assisted breeding in perennials, especially as it relates to the introgression of useful traits from wild relatives. The identification of genetic markers predictive of beneficial phenotypes derived from wild relatives is hampered by genomic tools designed for domesticated species that are often ill-suited for use in wild relatives. There is therefore an urgent need for better genomic resources from wild relatives. A further barrier to exploiting wild diversity through genomics is the phenotyping bottleneck: well-powered genetic mapping requires accurate and cost-effective characterization of large collections of diverse wild germplasm. While genomics will always be used in combination with traditional breeding methods, it is a powerful tool for accelerating the speed and reducing the costs of breeding while harvesting the potential of wild relatives for improving perennial crops.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".