Literature DB >> 23982592

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

Benjamin McClosky1, Jason LaCombe, Steven D Tanksley.   

Abstract

Self-fertilization (selfing) is commonly used for population development in plant breeding, and it is well established that selfing increases genetic variance between lines, thus increasing response to phenotypic selection. Furthermore, numerous studies have explored how selfing can be deployed to maximal benefit in the context of traditional plant breeding programs (Cornish in Heredity 65:201-211,1990a, Heredity 65:213-220,1990b; Liu et al. in Theor Appl Genet 109:370-376, 2004; Pooni and Jinks in Heredity 54:255-260, 1985). However, the impact of selfing on response to genomic selection has not been explored. In the current study we examined how selfing impacts the two key aspects of genomic selection-GEBV prediction (training) and selection response. We reach the following conclusions: (1) On average, selfing increases genomic selection gains by more than 70 %. (2) The gains in genomic selection response attributable to selfing hold over a wide range population sizes (100-500), heritabilities (0.2-0.8), and selection intensities (0.01-0.1). However, the benefits of selfing are dramatically reduced as the number of QTLs drops below 20. (3) The major cause of the improved response to genomic selection with selfing is through an increase in the occurrence of superior genotypes and not through improved GEBV predictions. While performance of the training population improves with selfing (especially with low heritability and small population sizes), the magnitude of these improvements is relatively small compared with improvements observed in the selection population. To illustrate the value of these insights, we propose a practical genomic selection scheme that substantially shortens the number of generations required to fully capture the benefits of selfing. Specifically, we provide simulation evidence that indicates the proposed scheme matches or exceeds the selection gains observed in advanced populations (i.e. F 8 and doubled haploid) across a broad range of heritability and QTL models. Without sacrificing selection gains, we also predict that fully inbred candidates for potential commercialization can be identified as early as the F 4 generation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23982592     DOI: 10.1007/s00122-013-2182-x

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


  29 in total

1.  The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods.

Authors:  Hans D Daetwyler; Ricardo Pong-Wong; Beatriz Villanueva; John A Woolliams
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Comparison of frequency distributions of doubled haploid and single seed descent lines in barley.

Authors:  T M Choo; E Reinbergs; S J Park
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1982-09       Impact factor: 5.699

3.  Comparison of single seed descent and anther culture-derived lines of three single crosses of rice.

Authors:  B Courtois
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 5.699

4.  Molecular and morphological evaluation of doubled-haploid lines in maize. 2. Comparison with single-seed-descent lines.

Authors:  A Murigneux; S Baud; M Beckert
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 5.699

5.  Accuracy of genomic selection using stochastic search variable selection in Australian Holstein Friesian dairy cattle.

Authors:  Klara L Verbyla; Ben J Hayes; Philip J Bowman; Michael E Goddard
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.588

6.  Genome-based prediction of testcross values in maize.

Authors:  Theresa Albrecht; Valentin Wimmer; Hans-Jürgen Auinger; Malena Erbe; Carsten Knaak; Milena Ouzunova; Henner Simianer; Chris-Carolin Schön
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 5.699

7.  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

8.  Linkage and association mapping of Arabidopsis thaliana flowering time in nature.

Authors:  Benjamin Brachi; Nathalie Faure; Matt Horton; Emilie Flahauw; Adeline Vazquez; Magnus Nordborg; Joy Bergelson; Joel Cuguen; Fabrice Roux
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2010-05-06       Impact factor: 5.917

9.  The accuracy of Genomic Selection in Norwegian red cattle assessed by cross-validation.

Authors:  Tu Luan; John A Woolliams; Sigbjørn Lien; Matthew Kent; Morten Svendsen; Theo H E Meuwissen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-08-24       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  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

View more
  2 in total

1.  Using the Animal Model to Accelerate Response to Selection in a Self-Pollinating Crop.

Authors:  Wallace A Cowling; Katia T Stefanova; Cameron P Beeck; Matthew N Nelson; Bonnie L W Hargreaves; Olaf Sass; Arthur R Gilmour; Kadambot H M Siddique
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 3.154

2.  Island-Model Genomic Selection for Long-Term Genetic Improvement of Autogamous Crops.

Authors:  Shiori Yabe; Masanori Yamasaki; Kaworu Ebana; Takeshi Hayashi; Hiroyoshi Iwata
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.