Advancing crested wheatgrass [Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.] breeding through genotyping-by-sequencing and genomic selection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crested wheatgrass [Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn.] provides high quality, highly palatable forage for early season grazing. Genetic improvement of crested wheatgrass has been challenged by its complex genome, outcrossing nature, long breeding cycle, and lack of informative molecular markers. Genomic selection (GS) has potential for improving traits of perennial forage species, and genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) has enabled the development of genome-wide markers in non-model polyploid plants. An attempt was made to explore the utility of GBS and GS in crested wheatgrass breeding. Sequencing and phenotyping 325 genotypes representing 10 diverse breeding lines were performed. Bioinformatics analysis identified 827, 3,616, 14,090 and 46,136 single nucleotide polymorphism markers at 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% missing marker levels, respectively. Four GS models (BayesA, BayesB, BayesCπ, and rrBLUP) were examined for the accuracy of predicting nine agro-morphological and three nutritive value traits. Moderate accuracy (0.20 to 0.32) was obtained for the prediction of heading days, leaf width, plant height, clump diameter, tillers per plant and early spring vigor for genotypes evaluated at Saskatoon, Canada. Similar accuracy (0.29 to 0.35) was obtained for predicting fall regrowth and plant height for genotypes evaluated at Swift Current, Canada. The Bayesian models displayed similar or higher accuracy than rrBLUP. These findings show the feasibility of GS application for a non-model species to advance plant 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".