ArticlePlant methods2025
Optimizing fully-efficient two-stage models for genomic selection using open-source software.
Article in Plant methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unveiling the interactions between design optimization, modeling strategies, and spatial analysis in genomic selection.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Article
- Genotype-by-sequencing-enabled genome-wide association studies reveal genetic architecture of biomass and nitrogen modulation in tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius).G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- Integrating GWAS-guided markers preselection with genomic selection enhances prediction of pulpwood-related traits in slash pine (Pinus elliottii Englem.).BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Towards a sweetpotato genomic-enabled breeding: optimizing two-stage analysis of multi-environment augmented trials.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genomic-assisted breeding has transitioned from theoretical concepts to practical applications in breeding. Genomic selection (GS) predicts genomic breeding values (GEBV) using dense genetic markers. Single-stage models predict GEBVs from phenotypic observations in one step, fully accounting for the entire variance-covariance structure among genotypes, but face computational challenges. Two-stage models, preferred for their simplicity and efficiency, first calculate adjusted genotypic means accounting for spatial variation within each environment, then use these means to predict GEBVs. However, unweighted (UNW) two-stage models assume independent errors among adjusted means, neglecting correlations among estimation errors. Here, we show that fully-efficient two-stage models perform similarly to UNW models for randomized complete block designs but substantially better for augmented designs. Our simulation studies demonstrate the impact of the fully-efficient methodology on prediction accuracy across different implementations and scenarios. Incorporating non-additive effects and augmented designs significantly improved accuracy, emphasizing the synergy between design and model strategy. Consistent performance requires the estimation error covariance to be incorporated into a random effect (Full_R model) rather than into the residuals. Our results suggest that the fully-efficient methodology, particularly the Full_R model, should be more prevalent, especially as GS increases the appeal of sparse designs. We also provide a comprehensive theoretical background and open-source R code, enhancing understanding and facilitating broader adoption of fully-efficient two-stage models in GS. Here, we offer insights into the practical applications of fully-efficient models and their potential to increase genetic gain, demonstrating a
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.