ArticleFrontiers in plant science2025
Applying traditional and machine learning-based GWAS approaches for marker-trait identification in wheat.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2025. 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.
- An IRAT109 NAM population: Genetic characterization and mapping utility for trait dissection in japonica rice (Oryza sativa L.).The plant genome · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Complex traits arise from polygenic and interactive genomic architectures that are difficult to resolve using traditional genome-wide association study (GWAS) approaches. Machine learning (ML) provides complementary methods capable of capturing non-linear effects, improving signal detection, and enhancing predictive accuracy of marker trait associations (MTAs). Methods: Using a publicly available winter wheat dataset (CIMMYT), we evaluated several widely used traditional GWAS tools, including GAPIT, GCTA, GEMMA, sommer, and TASSEL, with respect to computational efficiency, model performance, and the consistency of detected associations. In parallel, ML approaches, such as Elastic Net, Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Random Forest, and the hybrid TSLRF model, were assessed based on feature importance metrics and functional annotation of selected markers. Results: Despite a shared reliance on mixed linear models, the traditional GWAS tools exhibited differences in runtime and showed modest but meaningful variability in the number and overlap of MTAs. ML models recovered several associations detected by traditional methods and additionally identified novel markers, potentially reflecting non-linear or epistatic effects. Discussion: Our findings demonstrate that ML can effectively complement traditional GWAS approaches for marker-trait identification in wheat. By extending beyond additive effects, ML broadens the scope of detectable genetic signals, providing a practical way to analyze complex traits and support informed marker-assisted breeding strategies.
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.