Evaluation of eight Bayesian genomic prediction models for three micronutrient traits in bread wheat ( <i>Triticum aestivum</i> L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In wheat, genomic prediction accuracy (GPA) was assessed for three micronutrient traits (grain iron, grain zinc, and β-carotenoid concentrations) using eight Bayesian regression models. For this purpose, data on 246 accessions, each genotyped with 17,937 DArT markers, were utilized. The phenotypic data on traits were available for 2013-2014 from Powerkheda (Madhya Pradesh) and for 2014-2015 from Meerut (Uttar Pradesh), India. The accuracy of the models was measured in terms of reliability, which was computed following a repeated cross-validation approach. The predictions were obtained independently for each of the two environments after adjusting for the local effects and across environments after adjusting for the environmental effects. The Bayes ridge regression (BayesRR) model outperformed the other seven models, whereas BayesLASSO (BayesL) was the least efficient. The GPA increased with an increase in the size of the training set as well as with an increase in marker density. The GPA values differed for the three traits and were higher for the best linear unbiased estimate (BLUE) (obtained after adjusting for the environmental effects) relative to those for the two environments. The GPA also remained unaffected after accounting for the population structure. The results of the present study suggest that only the best model should be used for the estimations of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) before their use for genomic selection to improve the grain micronutrient contents.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".