Genomic prediction for hastening and improving efficiency of forward selection in conifer polycross mating designs: an example from white spruce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic selection (GS) has a large potential for improving the prediction accuracy of breeding values and significantly reducing the length of breeding cycles. In this context, the choice of mating designs becomes critical to improve the efficiency of breeding operations and to obtain the largest genetic gains per time unit. Polycross mating designs have been traditionally used in tree and plant breeding to perform backward selection of the female parents. The possibility to use genetic markers for paternity identification and for building genomic prediction models should allow for a broader use of polycross tests in forward selection schemes. We compared the accuracies of genomic predictions of offspring's breeding values from a polycross and a full-sib (partial diallel) mating design with similar genetic background in white spruce (Picea glauca). Trees were phenotyped for growth and wood quality traits, and genotyped for 4092 SNPs representing as many gene loci distributed across the 12 spruce chromosomes. For the polycross progeny test, heritability estimates were smaller, but more precise using the genomic BLUP (GBLUP) model as compared with pedigree-based models accounting for the maternal pedigree or for the reconstructed full pedigree. Cross-validations showed that GBLUP predictions were 22-52% more accurate than predictions based on the maternal pedigree, and 5-7% more accurate than predictions using the reconstructed full pedigree. The accuracies of GBLUP predictions were high and in the same range for most traits between the polycross (0.61-0.70) and full-sib progeny tests (0.61-0.74). However, higher genetic gains per time unit were expected from the polycross mating design given the shorter time needed to conduct crosses. Considering the operational advantages of the polycross design in terms of easier handling of crosses and lower associated costs for test establishment, we believe that this mating scheme offers great opportunities for the development and operational application of forward GS.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".