Improving wheat grain yield genomic prediction accuracy using historical data.
G3 (Bethesda, Md.), ISSN: 2160-1836, Vol: 15, Issue: 4
2025
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Genomic selection is an essential tool to improve genetic gain in wheat breeding. This study aimed to enhance prediction accuracy for grain yield across various selection environments using CIMMYT's (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center) historical dataset. Ten years of grain yield data from 6 selection environments were analyzed, with the populations of 5 years (2018-2023) as the validation population and earlier years (back to 2013-2014) as the training population. Generally, we observed that as the number of training years increased, the prediction accuracy tended to improve or stabilize. For instance, in the late heat stress selection environment (beds late heat stress), prediction accuracy increased from 0.11 (1 training year) to 0.23 (5 years), stabilizing at 0.26. Similar trends were observed in the intermediate drought selection environment (beds with 2 irrigations), with prediction accuracy rising from 0.12 (1 year) to 0.21 (4 years) but minimal improvement beyond that. Conversely, some selection environments, such as flat 5 irrigations (flat optimal environment), did not significantly increase, with the prediction accuracy fluctuating around 0.09-0.14 regardless of the number of training years used. Additionally, average genetic diversity within the training population and the validation population influenced prediction accuracy. Indeed, a negative correlation between prediction accuracy and the genetic distance was observed. This highlights the need to balance genetic diversity to enhance the predictive power of genomic selection models. These findings exhibit the benefits of using an extended historical dataset while considering genetic diversity to maximize prediction accuracy in genomic selection strategies for wheat breeding, ultimately supporting the development of high-yielding varieties.
Bibliographic Details
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkaf038; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40056458; https://academic.oup.com/g3journal/article/doi/10.1093/g3journal/jkaf038/8064593; https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/g3journal/jkaf038; https://academic.oup.com/g3journal/advance-article/doi/10.1093/g3journal/jkaf038/8064593
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know