↓ Skip to main content

Predicting genomic selection efficiency to optimize calibration set and to assess prediction accuracy in highly structured populations

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical and Applied Genetics, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Predicting genomic selection efficiency to optimize calibration set and to assess prediction accuracy in highly structured populations
Published in
Theoretical and Applied Genetics, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00122-017-2956-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Rincent, A. Charcosset, L. Moreau

Abstract

We propose a criterion to predict genomic selection efficiency for structured populations. This criterion is useful to define optimal calibration set and to estimate prediction reliability for multiparental populations. Genomic selection refers to the use of genotypic information for predicting the performance of selection candidates. It has been shown that prediction accuracy depends on various parameters including the composition of the calibration set (CS). Assessing the level of accuracy of a given prediction scenario is of highest importance because it can be used to optimize CS sampling before collecting phenotypes, and once the breeding values are predicted it informs the breeders about the reliability of these predictions. Different criteria were proposed to optimize CS sampling in highly diverse panels, which can be useful to screen collections of genotypes. But plant breeders often work on structured material such as biparental or multiparental populations, for which these criteria are less adapted. We derived from the generalized coefficient of determination (CD) theory different criteria to optimize CS sampling and to assess the reliability associated to predictions in structured populations. These criteria were evaluated on two nested association mapping (NAM) populations and two highly diverse panels of maize. They were efficient to sample optimized CS in most situations. They could also estimate at least partly the reliability associated to predictions between NAM families, but they could not estimate differences in the reliability associated to the predictions of NAM families using the highly diverse panels as calibration sets. We illustrated that the CD criteria could be adapted to various prediction scenarios including inter and intra-family predictions, resulting in higher prediction accuracies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 32%
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Master 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 12 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 60 69%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Mathematics 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Chemistry 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 16 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 08 November 2017.
All research outputs
#5,937,486
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical and Applied Genetics
#1,073
of 3,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,855
of 319,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical and Applied Genetics
#25
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,565 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 319,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.