Literature DB >> 17673971

Genomic selection for marker-assisted improvement in line crosses.

N Piyasatian1, R L Fernando, J C M Dekkers.   

Abstract

Efficiency of genomic selection with low-cost genotyping in a composite line from a cross between inbred lines was evaluated for a trait with heritability 0.10 or 0.25 using a low-density marker map. With genomic selection, selection was on the sum of estimates of effects of all marker intervals across the genome, fitted either as fixed (fixed GS) or random (random GS) effects. Reponses to selection over 10 generations, starting from the F(2), were compared with standard BLUP selection. Estimates of variance for each interval were assumed independent and equal. Both GS strategies outperformed BLUP selection, especially in initial generations. Random GS outperformed fixed GS in early generations and performed slightly better than fixed GS in later generations. Random GS gave higher genetic gain when the number of marker intervals was greater (180 or 10 cM intervals), whereas fixed GS gave higher genetic gain when the number of marker intervals was low (90 or 20 cM). Including interactions between generation and marker scores in the model resulted in lower genetic gains than models without interactions. When phenotypes were available only in the F(2) for GS, treating marker scores as fixed effects led to considerably lower genetic gain than random GS. Benefits of GS over standard BLUP were lower with high heritability. Genomic selection resulted in greater response than MAS based on only significant marker intervals (standard MAS) by increasing the frequency of QTL with both large and small effects. The efficiency of genomic selection over standard MAS depends on stringency of the threshold used for QTL detection. In conclusion, genomic selection can be effective in composite lines using a sparse marker map.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17673971     DOI: 10.1007/s00122-007-0597-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Theor Appl Genet        ISSN: 0040-5752            Impact factor:   5.699


  16 in total

1.  Quantitative trait loci mapping in F(2) crosses between outbred lines.

Authors:  M Pérez-Enciso; L Varona
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Potential gain from optimizing multigeneration selection on an identified quantitative trait locus.

Authors:  J C Dekkers; R Chakraborty
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model.

Authors:  C R Henderson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 2.571

4.  On marker-assisted prediction of genetic value: beyond the ridge.

Authors:  Daniel Gianola; Miguel Perez-Enciso; Miguel A Toro
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Theoretical basis of the Beavis effect.

Authors:  Shizhong Xu
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Genetic polymorphism in varietal identification and genetic improvement.

Authors:  M Soller; J S Beckmann
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1983-11       Impact factor: 5.699

7.  Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits.

Authors:  R Lande; R Thompson
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping using different testers and independent population samples in maize reveals low power of QTL detection and large bias in estimates of QTL effects.

Authors:  A E Melchinger; H F Utz; C C Schön
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  Marker-assisted selection efficiency in populations of finite size.

Authors:  L Moreau; A Charcosset; F Hospital; A Gallais
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Estimating polygenic effects using markers of the entire genome.

Authors:  Shizhong Xu
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.562

View more
  20 in total

1.  Evaluation of genome-wide selection efficiency in maize nested association mapping populations.

Authors:  Zhigang Guo; Dominic M Tucker; Jianwei Lu; Venkata Kishore; Gilles Gay
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 5.699

2.  Incorporating desirable genetic characteristics from an inferior into a superior population using genomic selection.

Authors:  J Odegård; M H Yazdi; A K Sonesson; T H E Meuwissen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2008-12-01       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Genomic selection using low-density marker panels.

Authors:  D Habier; R L Fernando; J C M Dekkers
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Selfing for the design of genomic selection experiments in biparental plant populations.

Authors:  Benjamin McClosky; Jason LaCombe; Steven D Tanksley
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2013-08-27       Impact factor: 5.699

5.  Genetic analysis of an F2 intercross between two strains of Japanese quail provided evidence for quantitative trait loci affecting carcass composition and internal organs.

Authors:  Hasan Moradian; Ali K Esmailizadeh; Saeed S Sohrabi; Ehsan Nasirifar; Nahid Askari; Mohammad Reza Mohammadabadi; Amin Baghizadeh
Journal:  Mol Biol Rep       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 2.316

6.  The impact of population structure on genomic prediction in stratified populations.

Authors:  Zhigang Guo; Dominic M Tucker; Christopher J Basten; Harish Gandhi; Elhan Ersoz; Baohong Guo; Zhanyou Xu; Daolong Wang; Gilles Gay
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2014-01-24       Impact factor: 5.699

7.  Simultaneous estimation of multiple quantitative trait loci and growth curve parameters through hierarchical Bayesian modeling.

Authors:  M J Sillanpää; P Pikkuhookana; S Abrahamsson; T Knürr; A Fries; E Lerceteau; P Waldmann; M R García-Gil
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 3.821

8.  Factors affecting accuracy from genomic selection in populations derived from multiple inbred lines: a Barley case study.

Authors:  Shengqiang Zhong; Jack C M Dekkers; Rohan L Fernando; Jean-Luc Jannink
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  Performance of genomic selection in mice.

Authors:  Andrés Legarra; Christèle Robert-Granié; Eduardo Manfredi; Jean-Michel Elsen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2008-08-30       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Evaluation of the utility of gene expression and metabolic information for genomic prediction in maize.

Authors:  Zhigang Guo; Michael M Magwire; Christopher J Basten; Zhanyou Xu; Daolong Wang
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2016-09-01       Impact factor: 5.699

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.