Genomic selection reveals hidden relatedness and increased breeding efficiency in western redcedar polycross breeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Western redcedar (WRC) is an ecologically and economically important forest tree species characterized by low genetic diversity with high self‐compatibility and high heartwood durability. Using sequence capture genotyping of target genic and non‐genic regions, we genotyped 44 parent trees and 1520 offspring trees representing 26 polycross (PX) families collected from three progeny test sites using 45,378 SNPs. Trees were phenotyped for eight traits related to growth, heartwood and foliar chemistry associated with wood durability and deer browse resistance. We used the genomic realized relationship matrix for paternity assignment, maternal pedigree correction, and to estimate genetic parameters. We compared genomics‐based (GBLUP) and two pedigree‐based (ABLUP: polycross and reconstructed full‐sib [FS] pedigrees) models. Models were extended to estimate dominance genetic effects. Pedigree reconstruction revealed significant unequal male contribution and separated the 26 PX families into 438 FS families. Traditional maternal PX pedigree analysis resulted in up to 51% overestimation in genetic gain and 44% in diversity. Genomic analysis resulted in up to 22% improvement in offspring breeding value (BV) theoretical accuracy, 35% increase in expected genetic gain for forward selection, and doubled selection intensity for backward selection. Overall, all traits showed low to moderate heritability (0.09–0.28), moderate genotype by environment interaction (type‐B genetic correlation: 0.51–0.80), low to high expected genetic gain (6.01%–55%), and no significant negative genetic correlation reflecting no large trade‐offs for multi‐trait selection. Only three traits showed a significant dominance effect. GBLUP resulted in smaller but more accurate heritability estimates for five traits, but larger estimates for the wood traits. Comparison between all, genic‐coding, genic‐non‐coding and intergenic SNPs showed little difference in genetic estimates. In summary, we show that GBLUP overcomes the PX limitations, successfully captures expected historical and hidden relatedness as well as linkage disequilibrium (LD), and results in increased breeding efficiency in WRC.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".