|
|
Registro completo
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA Las Brujas. |
Fecha : |
03/05/2018 |
Actualizado : |
03/05/2018 |
Tipo de producción científica : |
Informes Agroclimáticos |
Autor : |
GIMÉNEZ, A.; CAL, A.; TISCORNIA, G.; SCHIAVI, C. |
Afiliación : |
AGUSTIN EDUARDO GIMÉNEZ FUREST, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; ADRIAN TABARE CAL ALVAREZ, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; GUADALUPE TISCORNIA TOSAR, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; CARLOS IGNACIO SCHIAVI RAMPELBERG, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay. |
Título : |
Informe agroclimático 2018 - Situación a Abril. |
Fecha de publicación : |
2018 |
Fuente / Imprenta : |
Montevideo (Uruguay): INIA, 2018. |
Páginas : |
4 p. |
Serie : |
(Informe Agroclimático; 144) |
Idioma : |
Español |
Palabras claves : |
AGROCLIMA; AGROCLIMATOLOGÍA; BOLETIN AGROCLIMÁTICO; CARACTERIZACIÓN AGROCLIMÁTICA; DIRECCION VIENTO; ESTACIONES AGROMETEOROLOGICAS; ESTACIONES AUTOMATICAS; ESTACIONES INIA; ESTADO DEL TIEMPO; ESTRÉS HÍDRICO; GRAFICAS AGROCLIMATICOS; GRAS; HELIOFANOGRAFO; INFORMACION SATELITAL; INFORME AGROCLIMÁTICO 2018; INUNDACIONES; LLUVIAS DIARIAS; MAXIMA; MEDIA; MINIMA; PANEL SOLAR; PERSPECTIVAS CLIMATICAS; PLUVIOMETRO; PRECIPITACION NACIONAL; PREVENCION HELADAS; PRONOSTICO; SENSOR; SIMETRICO; TANQUE A; TERMOCUPLAS; TERMOHIDROGRAFO; VARIABLES AGROCLIMATICAS; VELETA. |
Thesagro : |
AGROCLIMATOLOGIA; CAMBIO CLIMATICO; CLIMA; CLIMATOLOGIA; ESTACIONES METEOROLOGICAS; ESTRES HIDRICO; EVAPORACION; EVAPOTRANSPIRACION; HUMEDAD; HUMEDAD RELATIVA; LLUVIA; METEOROLOGIA; PERSPECTIVAS; PLUVIOMETROS; PRONOSTICO DEL TIEMPO; SENSORES; SISTEMAS; SISTEMAS DE INFORMACION; SUELO; TEMPERATURA; TERMOMETROS. |
Asunto categoría : |
P40 Meteorología y climatología |
URL : |
http://www.ainfo.inia.uy/digital/bitstream/item/9438/1/Informe-agroclimatico-INIA-GRAS-Abril-de-2018.pdf
|
Marc : |
LEADER 02126nam a2200805 a 4500 001 1058515 005 2018-05-03 008 2018 bl uuuu u0uu1 u #d 100 1 $aGIMÉNEZ, A. 245 $aInforme agroclimático 2018 - Situación a Abril.$h[electronic resource] 260 $aMontevideo (Uruguay): INIA$c2018 300 $a4 p. 490 $a(Informe Agroclimático; 144) 650 $aAGROCLIMATOLOGIA 650 $aCAMBIO CLIMATICO 650 $aCLIMA 650 $aCLIMATOLOGIA 650 $aESTACIONES METEOROLOGICAS 650 $aESTRES HIDRICO 650 $aEVAPORACION 650 $aEVAPOTRANSPIRACION 650 $aHUMEDAD 650 $aHUMEDAD RELATIVA 650 $aLLUVIA 650 $aMETEOROLOGIA 650 $aPERSPECTIVAS 650 $aPLUVIOMETROS 650 $aPRONOSTICO DEL TIEMPO 650 $aSENSORES 650 $aSISTEMAS 650 $aSISTEMAS DE INFORMACION 650 $aSUELO 650 $aTEMPERATURA 650 $aTERMOMETROS 653 $aAGROCLIMA 653 $aAGROCLIMATOLOGÍA 653 $aBOLETIN AGROCLIMÁTICO 653 $aCARACTERIZACIÓN AGROCLIMÁTICA 653 $aDIRECCION VIENTO 653 $aESTACIONES AGROMETEOROLOGICAS 653 $aESTACIONES AUTOMATICAS 653 $aESTACIONES INIA 653 $aESTADO DEL TIEMPO 653 $aESTRÉS HÍDRICO 653 $aGRAFICAS AGROCLIMATICOS 653 $aGRAS 653 $aHELIOFANOGRAFO 653 $aINFORMACION SATELITAL 653 $aINFORME AGROCLIMÁTICO 2018 653 $aINUNDACIONES 653 $aLLUVIAS DIARIAS 653 $aMAXIMA 653 $aMEDIA 653 $aMINIMA 653 $aPANEL SOLAR 653 $aPERSPECTIVAS CLIMATICAS 653 $aPLUVIOMETRO 653 $aPRECIPITACION NACIONAL 653 $aPREVENCION HELADAS 653 $aPRONOSTICO 653 $aSENSOR 653 $aSIMETRICO 653 $aTANQUE A 653 $aTERMOCUPLAS 653 $aTERMOHIDROGRAFO 653 $aVARIABLES AGROCLIMATICAS 653 $aVELETA 700 1 $aCAL, A. 700 1 $aTISCORNIA, G. 700 1 $aSCHIAVI, C.
Descargar
Esconder MarcPresentar Marc Completo |
Registro original : |
INIA Las Brujas (LB) |
|
Biblioteca
|
Identificación
|
Origen
|
Tipo / Formato
|
Clasificación
|
Cutter
|
Registro
|
Volumen
|
Estado
|
Volver
|
|
Registro completo
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA La Estanzuela. |
Fecha actual : |
21/02/2014 |
Actualizado : |
05/12/2018 |
Tipo de producción científica : |
Artículos en Revistas Indexadas Internacionales |
Circulación / Nivel : |
A - 1 |
Autor : |
BRANDARIZ , S.; GONZÁLEZ RAYMÚNDEZ, A.; LADO, B.; MALOSETTI, M.; FRANCO GARCIA, A.; QUINCKE, M.; VON ZITZEWITZ, J.; CASTRO, M.; MATUS,I.; DEL POZO, A.; CASTRO, A.J.; GUTIÉRREZ, L. |
Afiliación : |
SOFÍA P. BRANDARIZ, Universidad de la República (UdelaR); Facultad de Agronomía, Uruguay.; AGUSTÍN GONZÁLEZ REYMÚNDEZ; BETTINA LADO; MARCOS MALOSETTI; ANTONIO AUGUSTO FRANCO GARCIA; MARTIN CONRADO QUINCKE WALDEN, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; JARISLAV RAMON VON ZITZEWITZ VON SALVIATI, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; MARINA CASTRO DERENYI, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; IVÁN MATUS; ALEJANDRO DEL POZO; ARIEL J. CASTRO; LUCÍA GUTIÉRREZ. |
Título : |
Ascertainment bias from imputation methods evaluation in wheat. |
Fecha de publicación : |
2016 |
Fuente / Imprenta : |
BMC Genomics, 2016, v. 17, p.773. |
DOI : |
10.1186/s12864-016-3120-5 |
Idioma : |
Inglés |
Notas : |
OPEN ACCESS. Article history: Received 2016 Feb 24 // Accepted 2016 Sep 23. |
Contenido : |
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Whole-genome genotyping techniques like Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) are being used for genetic studies such as Genome-Wide Association (GWAS) and Genomewide Selection (GS), where different strategies for imputation have been developed. Nevertheless, imputation error may lead to poor performance (i.e. smaller power or higher false positive rate) when complete data is not required as it is for GWAS, and each marker is taken at a time. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of GWAS analysis for Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) of major and minor effect using different imputation methods when no reference panel is available in a wheat GBS panel.
RESULTS:
In this study, we compared the power and false positive rate of dissecting quantitative traits for imputed and not-imputed marker score matrices in: (1) a complete molecular marker barley panel array, and (2) a GBS wheat panel with missing data. We found that there is an ascertainment bias in imputation method comparisons. Simulating over a complete matrix and creating missing data at random proved that imputation methods have a poorer performance. Furthermore, we found that when QTL were simulated with imputed data, the imputation methods performed better than the not-imputed ones. On the other hand, when QTL were simulated with not-imputed data, the not-imputed method and one of the imputation methods performed better for dissecting quantitative traits. Moreover, larger differences between imputation methods were detected for QTL of major effect than QTL of minor effect. We also compared the different marker score matrices for GWAS analysis in a real wheat phenotype dataset, and we found minimal differences indicating that imputation did not improve the GWAS performance when a reference panel was not available.
CONCLUSIONS:
Poorer performance was found in GWAS analysis when an imputed marker score matrix was used, no reference panel is available, in a wheat GBS panel. MenosAbstract
BACKGROUND:
Whole-genome genotyping techniques like Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) are being used for genetic studies such as Genome-Wide Association (GWAS) and Genomewide Selection (GS), where different strategies for imputation have been developed. Nevertheless, imputation error may lead to poor performance (i.e. smaller power or higher false positive rate) when complete data is not required as it is for GWAS, and each marker is taken at a time. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of GWAS analysis for Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) of major and minor effect using different imputation methods when no reference panel is available in a wheat GBS panel.
RESULTS:
In this study, we compared the power and false positive rate of dissecting quantitative traits for imputed and not-imputed marker score matrices in: (1) a complete molecular marker barley panel array, and (2) a GBS wheat panel with missing data. We found that there is an ascertainment bias in imputation method comparisons. Simulating over a complete matrix and creating missing data at random proved that imputation methods have a poorer performance. Furthermore, we found that when QTL were simulated with imputed data, the imputation methods performed better than the not-imputed ones. On the other hand, when QTL were simulated with not-imputed data, the not-imputed method and one of the imputation methods performed better for dissecting quantitative traits. Moreover, larger differences between ... Presentar Todo |
Palabras claves : |
FALSE POSITIVE; FALSO POSITIVO; GBS; GWAS; POWER; QTLs. |
Thesagro : |
MEJORAMIENTO DE TRIGO. |
Asunto categoría : |
F30 Genética vegetal y fitomejoramiento |
URL : |
http://www.ainfo.inia.uy/digital/bitstream/item/12122/1/s12864-016-3120-5.pdf
https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-016-3120-5
|
Marc : |
LEADER 02972nam a2200349 a 4500 001 1047336 005 2018-12-05 008 2016 bl uuuu u0uu1 u #d 024 7 $a10.1186/s12864-016-3120-5$2DOI 100 1 $aBRANDARIZ , S. 245 $aAscertainment bias from imputation methods evaluation in wheat.$h[electronic resource] 260 $aBMC Genomics, 2016, v. 17, p.773.$c2016 500 $aOPEN ACCESS. Article history: Received 2016 Feb 24 // Accepted 2016 Sep 23. 520 $aAbstract BACKGROUND: Whole-genome genotyping techniques like Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) are being used for genetic studies such as Genome-Wide Association (GWAS) and Genomewide Selection (GS), where different strategies for imputation have been developed. Nevertheless, imputation error may lead to poor performance (i.e. smaller power or higher false positive rate) when complete data is not required as it is for GWAS, and each marker is taken at a time. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of GWAS analysis for Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) of major and minor effect using different imputation methods when no reference panel is available in a wheat GBS panel. RESULTS: In this study, we compared the power and false positive rate of dissecting quantitative traits for imputed and not-imputed marker score matrices in: (1) a complete molecular marker barley panel array, and (2) a GBS wheat panel with missing data. We found that there is an ascertainment bias in imputation method comparisons. Simulating over a complete matrix and creating missing data at random proved that imputation methods have a poorer performance. Furthermore, we found that when QTL were simulated with imputed data, the imputation methods performed better than the not-imputed ones. On the other hand, when QTL were simulated with not-imputed data, the not-imputed method and one of the imputation methods performed better for dissecting quantitative traits. Moreover, larger differences between imputation methods were detected for QTL of major effect than QTL of minor effect. We also compared the different marker score matrices for GWAS analysis in a real wheat phenotype dataset, and we found minimal differences indicating that imputation did not improve the GWAS performance when a reference panel was not available. CONCLUSIONS: Poorer performance was found in GWAS analysis when an imputed marker score matrix was used, no reference panel is available, in a wheat GBS panel. 650 $aMEJORAMIENTO DE TRIGO 653 $aFALSE POSITIVE 653 $aFALSO POSITIVO 653 $aGBS 653 $aGWAS 653 $aPOWER 653 $aQTLs 700 1 $aGONZÁLEZ RAYMÚNDEZ, A. 700 1 $aLADO, B. 700 1 $aMALOSETTI, M. 700 1 $aFRANCO GARCIA, A. 700 1 $aQUINCKE, M. 700 1 $aVON ZITZEWITZ, J. 700 1 $aCASTRO, M. 700 1 $aMATUS,I. 700 1 $aDEL POZO, A. 700 1 $aCASTRO, A.J. 700 1 $aGUTIÉRREZ, L.
Descargar
Esconder MarcPresentar Marc Completo |
Registro original : |
INIA La Estanzuela (LE) |
|
Biblioteca
|
Identificación
|
Origen
|
Tipo / Formato
|
Clasificación
|
Cutter
|
Registro
|
Volumen
|
Estado
|
Volver
|
Expresión de búsqueda válido. Check! |
|
|