Use of F2 Bulks in Training Sets for Genomic Prediction of Combining Ability and Hybrid Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, wheat, rice, rapeseed, cotton) this requires elaborate hybridization systems to prevent self-pollination and presents a significant impediment to the implementation of hybrid breeding in general and genomic selection in particular. An alternative to F1 hybrids are bulks of F2 seed from selfed F1 plants (F1:2). Seed production for F1:2 bulks requires no hybridization system because the number of F1 plants needed for producing enough F1:2 seed for multi-environment testing can be generated by hand-pollination. This study evaluated the suitability of F1:2 bulks for use in training sets for genomic prediction of F1 level general combining ability and hybrid performance, under different degrees of divergence between heterotic groups and modes of gene action, using quantitative genetic theory and simulation of a genomic prediction experiment. The simulation, backed by theory, showed that F1:2 training sets are expected to have a lower prediction accuracy relative to F1 training sets, particularly when heterotic groups have strongly diverged. The accuracy penalty, however, was only modest and mostly because of a lower heritability, rather than because of a difference in F1 and F1:2 genetic values. It is concluded that resorting to F1:2 bulks is, in theory at least, a promising approach to remove the significant complication of a hybridization system from the breeding process.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".