ArticleThe plant genome2026
Dissecting genetic architecture and improving machine learning‑based genomic prediction of flowering time in Osmanthus fragrans by integrating structural variants.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Sweet osmanthus (Osmanthus fragrans), a traditional ornamental plant in China, exhibits substantial variation in autumn flowering time, which significantly affects landscape application and cultivation efficiency. Here, we performed a genome-wide association study on 127 resequenced accessions classified into early, intermediate, and late flowering types, using a set of 2,325,410 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and 246,824 structural variants (SVs). By integrating SNP/insertion and deletion (Indel) and SV data with weighted gene co-expression network analysis, machine learning, and genomic prediction, we dissected the genetic architecture of flowering time. We identified 24 associated SNP/Indels and six SVs, mapping to 30 candidate genes, including known flowering regulators FLK, LOS1, Y14, MIF2, and GID1B. These genes showed tissue-specific expression, with some responding to low temperature. The two hub genes, GUX1 and LYG027904, were located within modules of the co-expression network associated with low-temperature treatment. Haplotype analysis revealed a specific three-SNP haplotype associated with late flowering and linked to LOS1, and epistatic interactions among combined genotypes contributed to phenotypic variation. Notably, integrating SVs with SNP/Indels improved genomic prediction accuracy; the gradient boosting decision tree model outperformed other machine learning algorithms, achieving a mean accuracy of 0.859 and an AUC > 0.8 (where AUC is area under receiver operating characteristic curve) for all flowering types. These findings provide insights into the genetic mechanisms underlying flowering time variation in O. fragrans, offer candidate genes and haplotypes for molecular breeding, and highlight the value of integrating SVs with machine learning for genomic prediction in woody ornamentals.
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.