Genomic selection for lentil breeding: Empirical evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic selection (GS) is a marker-based selection initially suggested for livestock breeding and is being encouraged for crop breeding. Several statistical models are used to implement GS; however, none have been tested for use in lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) breeding. This study was conducted to compare the accuracy of 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 (ST) models, two multiple-trait (MT) models, and a model that incorporates genotype × environment interaction (GEI) using populations from a lentil diversity panel and two recombinant inbred lines (RILs). The lines in all populations were phenotyped for five phenological traits and genotyped using a custom exome capture assay. Within-population, across-population, and across-environment genomic predictions were made. Prediction accuracy varied among the evaluated models, populations, prediction scenarios, and traits. Single-trait models showed similar accuracy in the absence of large effect quantitative trait loci (QTL) but BayesB outperformed all models when there were QTL with relatively large effects. Models that accounted for GEI and MT-GS models increased prediction accuracy for a low heritability trait by up to 66 and 14%, respectively. Moderate to high accuracies were obtained for within-population (range of .36-.85) and across-environment (range of .19-.89) predictions but across-population prediction accuracy was very low. Results suggest that GS can be implemented in lentil breeding 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it