Genomic selection for lentil breeding: empirical evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genomic selection (GS) is a type of marker-based selection which was initially suggested for livestock breeding and is being encouraged for crop breeding. Several statistical models and approaches have been developed to implement GS; however, none of these methods have been tested for use in lentil breeding. This study was conducted to evaluate different GS models and prediction scenarios based on empirical data and to make recommendations for designing genomic selection strategies for lentil breeding. We evaluated nine single-trait models, two multiple-trait models, and models that account for population structure and genotype-by-environment interaction (GEI) using a lentil diversity panel and two recombinant inbred lines (RIL) populations that were genotyped using a custom exome capture assay. Within-population, across-population and across-environment predictions were made for five phenology traits. Prediction accuracy varied among the evaluated models, populations, prediction scenarios, traits, and statistical models. Single-trait models showed similar accuracy for each trait in the absence of large effect QTL but BayesB outperformed all models when there were QTL with relatively large effects. Models that accounted for GEI and multiple-trait (MT) models increased prediction accuracy for a low heritability trait by up to 66% and 14% but accuracy did not improve for traits of high heritability. Moderate to high accuracies were obtained for within-population and across-environment predictions but across-population prediction accuracy was very low. This suggests that GS can be implemented in lentil to make predictions within populations and across environments, but across-population prediction should not be considered when the population size is small.
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 | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".