ArticleThe plant genome2026
Skim-sequencing for genomic selection in wheat: a comparison of marker platforms.
Article in The plant genome, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a low-coverage whole genome sequencing screen for apomixis using a diverse set of Malus germplasm.PLoS genetics · 2026Article
- Skim-sequencing for genomic selection in wheat: a comparison of marker platforms.The plant genome · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The promise of genomics-assisted breeding relies on efficient, affordable, and abundant molecular markers. Leveraging modern sequencing technology, commercial laboratory products, and open-source software, we demonstrate how ultra-low whole-genome sequencing coverage (skim-seq, 0.05-0.10x) can be a viable marker platform. The direct generation of sequence data followed by imputation provides an opportunity to implement genomic selection while being robust to future genomic (changes in reference genome) and technological (improvement in sequencing capacity) changes. We genotyped 1709 wheat (Triticum aestivum) lines with genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS), a mid-density DArTAG single nucleotide polymorphism panel, and skim-seq (0.07x). All skim-seq samples were used to identify loci variants using a reference genome without the aid of any high-coverage samples. STITCH software was used for imputation to obtain 121,437 markers. Comparing high-confidence STITCH imputed loci (approximately 65,000 of 14 M imputed loci) to high-coverage samples resulted in the correct imputation for more than 97.5% of the markers. Using phenotypic data, a fivefold cross validation was implemented for each marker platform. No one marker system performed the best in all test cases, with GBS often resulting in the highest correlation between observed and predicted values. The skim-seq correlations were typically within 0.03 of GBS, suggesting skim-seq can be a viable marker strategy for genomic prediction. As technology and computational pipelines advance, skim-seq appears to be a promising method to bridge the gap between targeted genotyping and whole-genome sequencing. The skim-seq method is highly flexible and can be optimized to a variety of program needs, potentially allowing for wide adoption by the plant breeding community.
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.