Increasing genomic prediction accuracy for unphenotyped full-sib families by modeling additive and dominance effects with large datasets in white spruce
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Genomic selection is becoming a standard technique in plant breeding and is now being introduced into forest tree breeding. Despite promising results to predict the genetic merit of superior material based on their additive breeding values, many studies and operational programs still neglect non-additive effects and their potential for enhancing genetic gains. Methods: Using two large comprehensive datasets totaling 4,066 trees from 146 full-sib families of white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss), we evaluated the effect of the inclusion of dominance on the precision of genetic parameter estimates and on the accuracy of conventional pedigree-based (ABLUP-AD) and genomic-based (GBLUP-AD) models. Results: While wood quality traits were mostly additively inherited, considerable non-additive effects and lower heritabilities were detected for growth traits. For growth, GBLUP-AD better partitioned the additive and dominance effects into roughly equal variances, while ABLUP-AD strongly overestimated dominance. The predictive abilities of breeding and total genetic value estimates were similar between ABLUP-AD and GBLUP-AD when predicting individuals from the same families as those included in the training dataset. However, GBLUP-AD outperformed ABLUP-AD when predicting for new unphenotyped families that were not represented in the training dataset, with, on average, 22% and 53% higher predictive ability of breeding and genetic values, respectively. Resampling simulations showed that GBLUP-AD required smaller sample sizes than ABLUP-AD to produce precise estimates of genetic variances and accurate predictions of genetic values. Still, regardless of the method used, large training datasets were needed to estimate additive and non-additive genetic variances precisely. Discussion: This study highlights the different quantitative genetic architectures between growth and wood traits. Furthermore, the usefulness of genomic additive-dominance models for predicting new families should allow practicing mating allocation to maximize the total genetic values for the propagation of elite material.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".