Quantitative Genetics and Genomics Converge to Accelerate Forest Tree Breeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest tree breeding has been successful at delivering genetically improved material for multiple traits based on recurrent cycles of selection, mating, and testing. However, long breeding cycles, late flowering, variable juvenile-mature correlations, emerging pests and diseases, climate, and market changes, all pose formidable challenges. Genetic dissection approaches such as quantitative trait mapping and association genetics have been fruitless to effectively drive operational marker-assisted selection (MAS) in forest trees, largely because of the complex multifactorial inheritance of most, if not all traits of interest. The convergence of high-throughput genomics and quantitative genetics has established two new paradigms that are changing contemporary tree breeding dogmas. Genomic selection (GS) uses large number of genome-wide markers to predict complex phenotypes. It has the potential to accelerate breeding cycles, increase selection intensity and improve the accuracy of breeding values. Realized genomic relationships matrices, on the other hand, provide innovations in genetic parameters' estimation and breeding approaches by tracking the variation arising from random Mendelian segregation in pedigrees. In light of a recent flow of promising experimental results, here we briefly review the main concepts, analytical tools and remaining challenges that currently underlie the application of genomics data to tree breeding. With easy and cost-effective genotyping, we are now at the brink of extensive adoption of GS in tree breeding. Areas for future GS research include optimizing strategies for updating prediction models, adding validated functional genomics data to improve prediction accuracy, and integrating genomic and multi-environment data for forecasting the performance of genetic material in untested sites or under changing climate scenarios. The buildup of phenotypic and genome-wide data across large-scale breeding populations and advances in computational prediction of discrete genomic features should also provide opportunities to enhance the application of genomics to tree breeding.
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 | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".