Automated Author ProfileStoehr, Michael U.
Stoehr, Michael U.
Current S-Index
Sum of Dataset Indices for all datasets
Average Dataset Index per Dataset
Average Dataset Index per dataset
Total Datasets
Total datasets for this author
Average FAIR Score
Average FAIR Score per dataset
Total Citations
Total citations to the author's datasets
Total Mentions
Total mentions of the author's datasets
S-Index Interpretation
The S-Index (Sharing Index) is a comprehensive metric that represents the cumulative impact of all your datasets. It is calculated as the sum of Dataset Index scores across all your claimed datasets.
What it means:
- A higher S-index indicates greater overall impact of your datasets relative to typical datasets in their fields of research
- The S-Index grows as you add more datasets or as existing datasets gain more citations and mentions
- It provides a single number to track your research data impact over time
Current S-Index: 8.5 (sum of 6 datasets Dataset Index scores)
More information here.
S-Index Over Time
Cumulative Citations Over Time
Cumulative Mentions Over Time
Datasets
Here we perform cross-generational GS analysis on coastal Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), reflecting trans-generational selective breeding application. 1,321 trees, representing 37 full-sib F1 families from 3 environments in British Columbia, Canada, were used as the training population for 1) EBVs (estimated breeding values) of juvenile height (HTJ) in the F1 generation predicting genomic EBVs of HTJ of 136 individuals in the F2 generation, 2) deregressed EBVs of F1 HTJ predicting deregressed genomic EBVs of F2 HTJ, 3) F1 mature height (HT35) predicting HTJ EBVs in F2, and 4) deregressed F1 HT35 predicting genomic deregressed HTJ EBVs in F2. Ridge regression best linear unbiased predictor (RR-BLUP), generalized ridge regression (GRR), and Bayes-B GS methods were used and compared to pedigree-based (ABLUP) predictions. GS accuracies for scenarios 1 (0.92, 0.91, and 0.91) and 3 (0.57, 0.56, and 0.58) were similar to their ABLUP counterparts (0.92 and 0.60 respectively) (using RR-BLUP, GRR, and Bayes-B). Results using deregressed values fell dramatically for both scenarios 2 and 4 which approached zero in many cases. Cross-generational GS validation of juvenile height in Douglas-fir produced predictive accuracies almost as high as that of ABLUP. Without capturing LD, GS cannot surpass the prediction of ABLUP. Here we tracked pedigree relatedness between training and validation sets. More markers or improved distribution of markers are required to capture LD in Douglas-fir. This is essential for accurate forward selection among siblings as markers that track pedigree are of little use for forward selection of individuals within controlled pollinated families.
Authors
- Thistlethwaite, Frances R. ;
- Ratcliffe, Blaise ;
- Klápště, Jaroslav ;
- Porth, Ilga ;
- Chen, Charles ;
- Stoehr, Michael U. ;
- El-Kassaby, Yousry A.
<b>Abstract</b><br/>Background Genomic selection (GS) can offer unprecedented gains, in terms of cost efficiency and generation turnover, to forest tree selective breeding; especially for late expressing and low heritability traits. Here, we used: 1) exome capture as a genotyping platform for 1372 Douglas-fir trees representing 37 full-sib families growing on three sites in British Columbia, Canada and 2) height growth and wood density (EBVs), and deregressed estimated breeding values (DEBVs) as phenotypes. Representing models with (EBVs) and without (DEBVs) pedigree structure. Ridge regression best linear unbiased predictor (RR-BLUP) and generalized ridge regression (GRR) were used to assess their predictive accuracies over space (within site, cross-sites, multi-site, and multi-site to single site) and time (age-age/ trait-trait). Results The RR-BLUP and GRR models produced similar predictive accuracies across the studied traits. Within-site GS prediction accuracies with models trained on EBVs were high (RR-BLUP: 0.79–0.91 and GRR: 0.80–0.91), and were generally similar to the multi-site (RR-BLUP: 0.83–0.91, GRR: 0.83–0.91) and multi-site to single-site predictive accuracies (RR-BLUP: 0.79–0.92, GRR: 0.79–0.92). Cross-site predictions were surprisingly high, with predictive accuracies within a similar range (RR-BLUP: 0.79–0.92, GRR: 0.78–0.91). Height at 12 years was deemed the earliest acceptable age at which accurate predictions can be made concerning future height (age-age) and wood density (trait-trait). Using DEBVs reduced the accuracies of all cross-validation procedures dramatically, indicating that the models were tracking pedigree (family means), rather than marker-QTL LD. Conclusions While GS models’ prediction accuracies were high, the main driving force was the pedigree tracking rather than LD. It is likely that many more markers are needed to increase the chance of capturing the LD between causal genes and markers.
Authors
- Thistlethwaite, Frances R. ;
- Ratcliffe, Blaise ;
- Klápště, Jaroslav ;
- Porth, Ilga ;
- Chen, Charles ;
- Stoehr, Michael U. ;
- El-Kassaby, Yousry A.
No description available
Authors
- Thistlethwaite, Frances R. ;
- Ratcliffe, Blaise ;
- Klápště, Jaroslav ;
- Porth, Ilga ;
- Chen, Charles ;
- Stoehr, Michael U. ;
- El-Kassaby, Yousry A.
No description available
Authors
- Thistlethwaite, Frances R. ;
- Ratcliffe, Blaise ;
- Klápště, Jaroslav ;
- Porth, Ilga ;
- Chen, Charles ;
- Stoehr, Michael U. ;
- El-Kassaby, Yousry A.
No description available
Authors
- Thistlethwaite, Frances R. ;
- Ratcliffe, Blaise ;
- Klápště, Jaroslav ;
- Porth, Ilga ;
- Chen, Charles ;
- Stoehr, Michael U. ;
- El-Kassaby, Yousry A.