↓ Skip to main content

Genome-Wide Association Studies and Comparison of Models and Cross-Validation Strategies for Genomic Prediction of Quality Traits in Advanced Winter Wheat Breeding Lines

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Genome-Wide Association Studies and Comparison of Models and Cross-Validation Strategies for Genomic Prediction of Quality Traits in Advanced Winter Wheat Breeding Lines
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2018.00069
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter S. Kristensen, Ahmed Jahoor, Jeppe R. Andersen, Fabio Cericola, Jihad Orabi, Luc L. Janss, Just Jensen

Abstract

The aim of the this study was to identify SNP markers associated with five important wheat quality traits (grain protein content, Zeleny sedimentation, test weight, thousand-kernel weight, and falling number), and to investigate the predictive abilities of GBLUP and Bayesian Power Lasso models for genomic prediction of these traits. In total, 635 winter wheat lines from two breeding cycles in the Danish plant breeding company Nordic Seed A/S were phenotyped for the quality traits and genotyped for 10,802 SNPs. GWAS were performed using single marker regression and Bayesian Power Lasso models. SNPs with large effects on Zeleny sedimentation were found on chromosome 1B, 1D, and 5D. However, GWAS failed to identify single SNPs with significant effects on the other traits, indicating that these traits were controlled by many QTL with small effects. The predictive abilities of the models for genomic prediction were studied using different cross-validation strategies. Leave-One-Out cross-validations resulted in correlations between observed phenotypes corrected for fixed effects and genomic estimated breeding values of 0.50 for grain protein content, 0.66 for thousand-kernel weight, 0.70 for falling number, 0.71 for test weight, and 0.79 for Zeleny sedimentation. Alternative cross-validations showed that the genetic relationship between lines in training and validation sets had a bigger impact on predictive abilities than the number of lines included in the training set. Using Bayesian Power Lasso instead of GBLUP models, gave similar or slightly higher predictive abilities. Genomic prediction based on all SNPs was more effective than prediction based on few associated SNPs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 22%
Researcher 21 18%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Student > Bachelor 5 4%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 36 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 62 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 <1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 <1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 38 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2019.
All research outputs
#12,770,990
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#5,109
of 20,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,847
of 439,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#156
of 452 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,556 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 452 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.