| Literature DB >> 26787426 |
Eiji Yamamoto1, Hiroshi Matsunaga1, Akio Onogi2, Hiromi Kajiya-Kanegae2, Mai Minamikawa2, Akinori Suzuki2, Kenta Shirasawa3, Hideki Hirakawa3, Tsukasa Nunome1, Hirotaka Yamaguchi1, Koji Miyatake1, Akio Ohyama4, Hiroyoshi Iwata2, Hiroyuki Fukuoka1.
Abstract
Efficient plant breeding methods must be developed in order to increase yields and feed a growing world population, as well as to meet the demands of consumers with diverse preferences who require high-quality foods. We propose a strategy that integrates breeding simulations and phenotype prediction models using genomic information. The validity of this strategy was evaluated by the simultaneous genetic improvement of the yield and flavour of the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), as an example. Reliable phenotype prediction models for the simulation were constructed from actual genotype and phenotype data. Our simulation predicted that selection for both yield and flavour would eventually result in morphological changes that would increase the total plant biomass and decrease the light extinction coefficient, an essential requirement for these improvements. This simulation-based genome-assisted approach to breeding will help to optimise plant breeding, not only in the tomato but also in other important agricultural crops.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26787426 PMCID: PMC4726135 DOI: 10.1038/srep19454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
List of traits analysed in this study.
| Trait | Abbreviation | Trait category | Details | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of fruit set (%) | PF | Yield | 0.300 | Percentage of flowers that reached fruit set in a plant |
| Total fruit weight (g/plant) | TFW | Yield | 0.507 | Total fruit weight per plant |
| Average fruit weight (g) | AFW | Yield | 0.538 | Average weight of all fruits from a plant |
| Percentage of marketable fruits (%) | PMF | Yield | 0.401 | Percentage of fruits of 100 g or more, without physiological disorders, in a plant |
| Total marketable fruit weight (g/plant) | TMFW | Yield | 0.449 | Total marketable fruit weight per plant |
| Average marketable fruit weight (g) | AMFW | Yield | 0.469 | Average weight of marketable fruits in a plant |
| Soluble solids content (˚Brix) | SSC | Quality | 0.600 | Degree of Brix measured by saccharimeter (average of 4 marketable fruits per plant) |
| Pericarp colour | PCol | Quality | 1.000 | Colourless (pink tomato) and yellow (red tomato) pericarp counted as 0 and 1, respectively |
| Style scar | SS | Quality | 0.492 | Size of style scar on ripened fruit was scored based on the length of major axis. 0: <4 mm, 1: 4 ~ 10 mm, 2: >10 mm |
| Percentage of blossom-end rot fruits (%) | PBF | Physiological disorder of fruit | 0.389 | Percentage of blossom-end rot fruits in a plant |
| Percentage of irregular-shaped fruits (%) | PIF | Physiological disorder of fruit | 0.478 | Percentage of irregular-shaped fruits in a plant |
| Percentage of cracked fruits (%) | PCF | Physiological disorder of fruit | 0.338 | Percentage of cracked fruits in a plant |
| Percentage of small fruits (%) | PSF | Physiological disorder of fruit | 0.372 | Percentage of fruits less than 100 g in a plant |
| Leaf length (mm) | LL | Others | 0.492 | Length of a leaf under the first truss |
| Leaf width (mm) | LW | Others | 0.464 | Width of a leaf under the first truss |
| Stem width (mm) | SW | Others | 0.377 | Width of a stem at the position of the first truss |
| Height to the first truss (cm) | H1T | Others | 0.370 | Height of the first truss from ground |
| Number of flowers | NFlo | Others | 0.382 | Number of flowers after defloration (maximum number of flowers is 6 per truss) |
| Days to flowering | DTF | Others | 0.106 | Number of days from seeding to first flower |
| Number of leaves under the first truss | NL1T | Others | 0.389 | Number of true leaves under the first truss |
Figure 1Linkage disequilibrium (LD) and population structure analysis.
(a) Linkage and physical map positions of SNP markers used in the present study. The numbers at the top of the panel indicate chromosome number. Lines indicate the chromosomal distribution of SNP markers. The left and right sides of each line indicate the linkage and physical map positions, respectively. (b) Plot of LD values (r2) against physical distance. The curve indicates local polynomial fits using kernel smoothing regression. The horizontal dashed lines represent the baseline r2 values based on the 95th percentile of the distribution of r2 values between pairs of unlinked markers. (c) Plot of LD values (r2) against linkage map distance. (d) Hierarchical clustering using the Ward method. (e) Bayesian clustering. Each variety was divided into two hypothetical subpopulations based on the population membership coefficients. Each subpopulation is represented by a different colour. (f) Principal component analysis. The numbers in plots correspond to the clusters in the hierarchical clustering. The colour of each plot indicates the year of development of each variety.
Figure 2Summary of the genome-wide association study (GWAS) results.
(a,b) GWAS results for average marketable fruit weight. (c,d) GWAS results for soluble solids content. (a,c) Manhattan plots for mixed linear model. The horizontal dashed lines indicate the threshold obtained from the 5% false discovery rate. (b,d) Posterior means of all marker effects for extended Bayesian Lasso. The values were obtained by using hyperparameter θ = 0.0001. (e) Chromosomal distribution of significant associations detected by the GWAS. AFW, average fruit weight; AMFW, average marketable fruit weight; SSC, soluble solids content; PCol, pericarp colour; SS, style scar; PBF, percentage of blossom-end rot fruits; PIF, percentage of irregular-shaped fruits; PCF, percentage of cracked fruits; LL, leaf length; LW, leaf width; SW, stem width; H1T, height to the first truss; NFlo, number of flowers; DTF, days to flowering; NL1T, number of leaves under the first truss. See Table 1 for details.
Linear regression model that uses significant associations in genome-wide association.
| Trait | NSM | NUM | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average fruit weight | 2 | 1 | 0.047 |
| Average marketable fruit weight | 1 | 1 | 0.067 |
| Soluble solids content | 3 | 3 | 0.535 |
| Pericarp colour | 3 | 3 | 0.648 |
| Style scar | 1 | 1 | 0.220 |
| Percentage of blossom-end rot fruits | 1 | 1 | 0.322 |
| Percentage of irregular-shaped fruits | 4 | 3 | 0.368 |
| Percentage of cracked fruits | 6 | 4 | 0.378 |
| Leaf length | 3 | 3 | 0.386 |
| Leaf width | 3 | 3 | 0.199 |
| Stem width | 1 | 1 | 0.021 |
| Height to the first truss | 1 | 1 | 0.020 |
| Number of flowers | 1 | 1 | 0.075 |
| Days to flowering | 3 | 3 | 0.443 |
| Number of leaves under the first truss | 2 | 1 | 0.137 |
*1NSM, Number of significant markers in the GWAS.
*2NUM, Number of markers used in the linear regression models. The variable selection was conducted using Akaike’s Information Criterion. See Methods for the details.
Accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) in traits evaluated in this study.
| Trait | RR | BL | EBL | wBSR | Bayes C | RKHS | RF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of fruit set | 0.238 | 0.244 | 0.220 | 0.290 | 0.256 | 0.207 | |
| Total fruit weight | 0.590 | 0.591 | 0.576 | 0.602 | 0.599 | 0.472 | |
| Average fruit weight | 0.461 | 0.424 | 0.450 | 0.450 | 0.455 | 0.302 | |
| Percentage of marketable fruits | 0.199 | 0.206 | 0.133 | 0.238 | 0.225 | 0.017 | |
| Total marketable fruit weight | 0.403 | 0.381 | 0.377 | 0.400 | 0.413 | 0.118 | |
| Average marketable fruit weight | 0.437 | 0.387 | 0.429 | 0.420 | 0.408 | 0.221 | |
| Soluble solids content | 0.772 | 0.768 | 0.779 | 0.778 | 0.771 | 0.679 | |
| Pericarp colour | 0.482 | 0.371 | 0.456 | 0.387 | 0.465 | 0.498 | |
| Style scar | 0.493 | 0.496 | 0.505 | 0.511 | 0.495 | 0.508 | |
| Percentage of blossom-end rot fruits | −0.064 | 0.113 | 0.015 | 0.030 | 0.153 | 0.012 | |
| Percentage of irregular-shaped fruits | 0.454 | 0.439 | 0.406 | 0.448 | 0.427 | 0.413 | |
| Percentage of cracked fruits | −0.018 | 0.034 | −0.240 | 0.095 | 0.022 | 0.117 | |
| Percentage of small fruits | −0.048 | 0.131 | −0.030 | 0.018 | −0.103 | −0.049 | |
| Leaf length | 0.361 | 0.366 | 0.244 | 0.307 | 0.346 | 0.365 | |
| Leaf width | 0.282 | 0.307 | 0.302 | 0.328 | 0.305 | 0.213 | |
| Stem width | 0.336 | 0.337 | 0.340 | 0.347 | 0.342 | 0.258 | |
| Height to the first truss | 0.397 | 0.409 | 0.381 | 0.399 | 0.355 | 0.394 | |
| Number of flowers | 0.332 | 0.367 | 0.350 | 0.323 | 0.331 | 0.343 | |
| Days to flowering | 0.576 | 0.584 | 0.581 | 0.580 | 0.591 | 0.653 | |
| Number of leaves under the first truss | 0.285 | 0.275 | 0.212 | 0.311 | 0.304 | 0.276 |
Accuracy was evaluated as a Pearson’s correlation coefficient between phenotypic values and GEBVs from leave-one-out cross validation.
Bold italics indicate the highest value in the same trait.
RR, Ridge regression; BL, Bayesian Lasso; EBL, Extended Bayesian Lasso; wBSR, Weighted Bayesian shrinkage regression; RKHS, Reproducing kernel Hilbert space regression; RF, Random forest.
Figure 3Results of simulations for the recurrent genomic selection.
(a) Scheme of breeding strategy used in the present study. (b) Distributions of the genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) of total fruit weight (TFW) and soluble solids content (SSC). Black circles and coloured crosses indicate the GEBVs of the 96 varieties and the simulated populations, respectively. G1 to G5 indicate the generation of breeding population during the cycles of recurrent genomic selection. (c) Boxplots for the GEBVs in the fifth generation of the simulated population (G5 in Fig. 3b). Statistical analysis was performed using Welch’s t-test. ‘Var.’ and ‘Sim.pop.’ at the bottom of each panel indicate the 96 varieties and the simulated population, respectively. AMFW, average marketable fruit weight; PMF, percentage of marketable fruits; H1T, height to the first truss; DTF, days to flowering; NL1T, number of leaves under the first truss. See Table 1 for details. GEBVs of each trait were estimated by using the statistical method that showed the highest predictability in leave-one-out cross-validation in Table 3.