Money matters (I): costs of field and laboratory procedures associated with conventional and marker-assisted maize breeding at CIMMYT

By Kate Dreher, M. Khairallah, J. Ribaut, M. Morris. Molecular breeding, 2003

146 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1955e5392879b905e7327dc640b425e2f945217a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Plant Science

Citations in the corpus

Biotechnology in the developing world: a case for increased investments in orphan crops (2004, result): “MAS for a recessive mutant gene associated with quality protein maize was found to compare favorably with the (difficult) conventional screen (Dreher et al., 2003).”
Marker-Assisted Selection in Plant Breeding: From Publications to Practice (2008, background): “Preliminary studies in this area have been performed in the major cereals, including maize (Dreher et al., 2003; Morris et al., 2003) and wheat (Kuchel et al., 2005).”
Genetic and Economic Analysis of a Targeted Marker-assisted Wheat Breeding Strategy (2005, result): “However, previous studies (Dreher et al. 2003; Morris et al. 2003) reporting the relative economic performance of a phenotypic and MAS strategy in maize indicated that the use of MAS could improve the rate of genetic gain, but was more expensive.”
Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century (2008, methodology): “The study by Dreher et al. (2003) indicated that costs may decrease as the number of samples and/or marker assays increases due to economies of scale and lack of divisibility for many components of MAS.”
Money matters (II): costs of maize inbred line conversion schemes at CIMMYT using conventional and marker-assisted selection (2003, methodology): “As described in Dreher et al. (2003), in the CIMMYT case study the costs of field operations and laboratory procedures were estimated assuming that the breeding program already exists and that DNA markers are available for the allele(s) of interest.”
Progress and prospects of marker assisted backcrossing as a tool in crop breeding programs (2006, background): “In other situations, phenotypic evaluation may be timeconsuming and/or difficult and therefore using markers may be cheaper and preferable (Young, 1999; Yu et al., 2000; Dreher et al., 2003).”
Cowpea, a multifunctional legume. (2008, methodology): “Prior to applying MAS, a realistic assessment of the cost-benefit ratio in comparison with phenotypic assays performed in the field, greenhouse, or laboratory needs to be conducted (Dekkers and Hospital 2002; Dreher et al. 2003).”