↓ Skip to main content

Hybrid Performance of an Immortalized F2 Rapeseed Population Is Driven by Additive, Dominance, and Epistatic Effects

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Hybrid Performance of an Immortalized F2 Rapeseed Population Is Driven by Additive, Dominance, and Epistatic Effects
Published in
Frontiers in Plant Science, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpls.2017.00815
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peifa Liu, Yusheng Zhao, Guozheng Liu, Meng Wang, Dandan Hu, Jun Hu, Jinling Meng, Jochen C. Reif, Jun Zou

Abstract

Genomics-based prediction of hybrid performance promises to boost selection gain. The main goal of our study was to investigate the relevance of additive, dominance, and epistatic effects for determining hybrid seed yield in a biparental rapeseed population. We re-analyzed 60,000 SNP array and seed yield data points from an immortalized F2 population comprised of 318 hybrids and 180 parental lines by performing genome-wide QTL mapping and predictions in combination with five-fold cross-validation. Moreover, an additional set of 37 hybrids were genotyped and phenotyped in an independent environment. The decomposition of the phenotypic variance components and the cross-validated results of the QTL mapping and genome-wide predictions revealed that the hybrid performance in rapeseed was driven by a mix of additive, dominance, and epistatic effects. Interestingly, the genome-wide prediction accuracy in the additional 37 hybrids remained high when modeling exclusively additive effects but was severely reduced when dominance or epistatic effects were also included. This loss in accuracy was most likely caused by more pronounced interactions of environments with dominance and epistatic effects than with additive effects. Consequently, the development of robust hybrid prediction models, including dominance and epistatic effects, required much deeper phenotyping in multi-environmental trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 15%
Student > Master 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Unknown 8 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,462,982
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Plant Science
#10,971
of 20,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,904
of 313,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Plant Science
#381
of 617 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20,425 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 617 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.