Metadata analysis indicates biased estimation of genetic parameters and gains using conventional pedigree information instead of genomic-based approaches in tree breeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest tree improvement helps provide adapted planting stock to ensure growth productivity, fibre quality and carbon sequestration through reforestation and afforestation activities. However, there is increasing doubt that conventional pedigree provides the most accurate estimates for selection and prediction of performance of improved planting stock. When the additive genetic relationships among relatives is estimated using pedigree information, it is not possible to take account of Mendelian sampling due to the random segregation of parental alleles. The use of DNA markers distributed genome-wide (multi-locus genotypes) makes it possible to estimate the realized additive genomic relationships, which takes account of the Mendelian sampling and possible pedigree errors. We reviewed a series of papers on conifer and broadleaf tree species in which both pedigree-based and marker-based estimates of genetic parameters have been reported. Using metadata analyses, we show that for heritability and genetic gains, the estimates obtained using only the pedigree information are generally biased upward compared to those obtained using DNA markers distributed genome-wide, and that genotype-by-environment (GxE) interaction can be underestimated for low to moderate heritability traits. As high-throughput genotyping becomes economically affordable, we recommend expanding the use of genomic selection to obtain more accurate estimates of genetic parameters and gains.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".