Genomic and pedigree-based prediction for leaf, stem, and stripe rust resistance in wheat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
KEY MESSAGE: Genomic prediction for seedling and adult plant resistance to wheat rusts was compared to prediction using few markers as fixed effects in a least-squares approach and pedigree-based prediction. The unceasing plant-pathogen arms race and ephemeral nature of some rust resistance genes have been challenging for wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) breeding programs and farmers. Hence, it is important to devise strategies for effective evaluation and exploitation of quantitative rust resistance. One promising approach that could accelerate gain from selection for rust resistance is 'genomic selection' which utilizes dense genome-wide markers to estimate the breeding values (BVs) for quantitative traits. Our objective was to compare three genomic prediction models including genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), GBLUP A that was GBLUP with selected loci as fixed effects and reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces-markers (RKHS-M) with least-squares (LS) approach, RKHS-pedigree (RKHS-P), and RKHS markers and pedigree (RKHS-MP) to determine the BVs for seedling and/or adult plant resistance (APR) to leaf rust (LR), stem rust (SR), and stripe rust (YR). The 333 lines in the 45th IBWSN and the 313 lines in the 46th IBWSN were genotyped using genotyping-by-sequencing and phenotyped in replicated trials. The mean prediction accuracies ranged from 0.31-0.74 for LR seedling, 0.12-0.56 for LR APR, 0.31-0.65 for SR APR, 0.70-0.78 for YR seedling, and 0.34-0.71 for YR APR. For most datasets, the RKHS-MP model gave the highest accuracies, while LS gave the lowest. GBLUP, GBLUP A, RKHS-M, and RKHS-P models gave similar accuracies. Using genome-wide marker-based models resulted in an average of 42% increase in accuracy over LS. We conclude that GS is a promising approach for improvement of quantitative rust resistance and can be implemented in the breeding pipeline.
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 | 0.002 | 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".