Genomic prediction in <i>Brassica napus</i>: evaluating the benefit of imputed whole-genome sequencing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in sequencing technology allow whole plant genomes to be sequenced with high quality. Combining genotypic and phenotypic data in genomic prediction helps breeders to select crossing partners in partially phenotyped populations. In plant breeding programs, the cost of sequencing entire breeding populations still exceeds available genotyping budgets. Hence, the method for genotyping is still mainly single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays; however, arrays are unable to assess the entire genome- and population-wide diversity. A compromise involves genotyping the entire population using an SNP array and a subset of the population with whole-genome sequencing. Both datasets can then be used to impute markers from whole-genome sequencing onto the entire population. Here, we evaluate whether imputation of whole-genome sequencing data enhances genomic predictions, using data from a nested association mapping population of rapeseed ( Brassica napus). Employing two cross-validation schemes that mimic scenarios for the prediction of close and distant relatives, we show that imputed marker data do not significantly improve prediction accuracy, likely due to redundancy in relationship estimates and imputation errors. In simulation studies, only small improvements were observed, further corroborating the findings. We conclude that SNP arrays are already equipped with the information that is added by imputation through relationship and linkage disequilibrium.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".