| Literature DB >> 30992319 |
Haipeng Yu1, Malachy T Campbell1,2, Qi Zhang3, Harkamal Walia2, Gota Morota4.
Abstract
With the advent of high-throughput phenotyping platforms, plant breeders have a means to assess many traits for large breeding populations. However, understanding the genetic interdependencies among high-dimensional traits in a statistically robust manner remains a major challenge. Since multiple phenotypes likely share mutual relationships, elucidating the interdependencies among economically important traits can better inform breeding decisions and accelerate the genetic improvement of plants. The objective of this study was to leverage confirmatory factor analysis and graphical modeling to elucidate the genetic interdependencies among a diverse agronomic traits in rice. We used a Bayesian network to depict conditional dependencies among phenotypes, which can not be obtained by standard multi-trait analysis. We utilized Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis which hypothesized that 48 observed phenotypes resulted from six latent variables including grain morphology, morphology, flowering time, physiology, yield, and morphological salt response. This was followed by studying the genetics of each latent variable, which is also known as factor, using single nucleotide polymorphisms. Bayesian network structures involving the genomic component of six latent variables were established by fitting four algorithms (i.e., Hill Climbing, Tabu, Max-Min Hill Climbing, and General 2-Phase Restricted Maximization algorithms). Physiological components influenced the flowering time and grain morphology, and morphology and grain morphology influenced yield. In summary, we show the Bayesian network coupled with factor analysis can provide an effective approach to understand the interdependence patterns among phenotypes and to predict the potential influence of external interventions or selection related to target traits in the interrelated complex traits systems.Entities:
Keywords: Bayesian network; factor analysis; multi-phenotypes; rice
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30992319 PMCID: PMC6553530 DOI: 10.1534/g3.119.400154
Source DB: PubMed Journal: G3 (Bethesda) ISSN: 2160-1836 Impact factor: 3.154
Figure 1Flow diagram to illustrate the concept of constraint-based structure learning algorithm for a Bayesian network. The A, B, C, D, and E represent five nodes or latent variables. S refers to a set of d-separation. The directed acyclic graph shown in Step 3 is one possible completed partially directed acyclic graph.
Figure 2Relationship between six latent variables and observed phenotypes. Msr: morphological salt response; Iss: ionic components of salt stress; Grm: grain morphology; Yid: yield; Mrp: morphology; Flt: flowering time. Abbreviations of observed phenotypes are shown in Table S1.
Standardized factor loadings obtained from the Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis. PSD refers to the posterior standard deviation of standardized factor loadings
| Latent variable | Observed phenotype | Loading | PSD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flowering time | Flowering time at Arkansas (Fla) | 0.990 | 0.002 |
| Flowering time | Flowering time at Faridpur (Flf) | 0.500 | 0.045 |
| Flowering time | Flowering time at Aberdeen (Flb) | 0.578 | 0.038 |
| Flowering time | FT ratio of Arkansas/Aberdeen (Flaa) | −0.212 | 0.053 |
| Flowering time | FT ratio of Faridpur/Aberdeen (Flfa) | −0.549 | 0.041 |
| Flowering time | Year07 Flowering time at Arkansas (Fla7) | 0.926 | 0.008 |
| Flowering time | Year06 Flowering time at Arkansas (Fla6) | 0.886 | 0.013 |
| Morphology | Culm habit (Cuh) | 0.227 | 0.027 |
| Morphology | Flag leaf length (Fll) | 0.116 | 0.057 |
| Morphology | Flag leaf width (Flw) | −0.044 | 0.058 |
| Morphology | Plant height (Plh) | 0.440 | 0.047 |
| Morphology | Shoot BM Control (Sbc) | 0.534 | 0.042 |
| Morphology | Shoot BM Salt (Sbs) | 0.456 | 0.048 |
| Morphology | Root BM Control (Rbc) | 0.418 | 0.048 |
| Morphology | Root BM Salt (Rbs) | 0.280 | 0.054 |
| Morphology | Tiller No Salt (Tns) | −0.349 | 0.051 |
| Morphology | Tiller No Control (Tbc) | −0.318 | 0.052 |
| Morphology | Ht Lig Salt (Hls) | 0.920 | 0.011 |
| Morphology | Ht Lig Control (Hlc) | 0.899 | 0.014 |
| Morphology | Ht FE Salt (Hfs) | 0.907 | 0.013 |
| Morphology | Ht FE Control (Hfc) | 0.925 | 0.011 |
| Yield | Panicle number per plant (Pnu) | 0.190 | 0.020 |
| Yield | Panicle length (Pal) | 0.455 | 0.057 |
| Yield | Primary panicle branch number (Ppn) | 0.790 | 0.041 |
| Yield | Seed number per panicle (Snpp) | 0.780 | 0.043 |
| Yield | Panicle fertility (Paf) | −0.085 | 0.081 |
| Grain Morphology | Seed length (Sl) | 0.251 | 0.029 |
| Grain Morphology | Seed width (Sw) | 0.876 | 0.015 |
| Grain Morphology | Seed volume (Sv) | 0.990 | 0.002 |
| Grain Morphology | Seed surface area (Ssa) | 0.901 | 0.012 |
| Grain Morphology | Brown rice seed length (Bsl) | 0.158 | 0.055 |
| Grain Morphology | Brown rice seed width (Bsw) | 0.837 | 0.019 |
| Grain Morphology | Brown rice surface area (Bsa) | 0.902 | 0.012 |
| Grain Morphology | Brown rice volume (Bvl) | 0.986 | 0.002 |
| Grain Morphology | Seed length/width ratio (Slwr) | −0.476 | 0.045 |
| Grain Morphology | Brown rice length/width ratio (Blwr) | −0.432 | 0.047 |
| Grain Morphology | Grain length McCouch2016 (Glmc) | 0.047 | 0.064 |
| Ionic components of salt stress | Na K Shoot (Ks) | 0.983 | 0.003 |
| Ionic components of salt stress | Na Shoot (Nas) | 0.975 | 0.004 |
| Ionic components of salt stress | K Shoot Salt (Kss) | −0.265 | 0.051 |
| Ionic components of salt stress | Na K Root (Kr) | 0.061 | 0.052 |
| Ionic components of salt stress | Na Root (Nar) | 0.001 | 0.053 |
| Ionic components of salt stress | K Root Salt (Krs) | −0.095 | 0.052 |
| Morphological salt response | Shoot BM Ratio (Sbr) | 0.410 | 0.047 |
| Morphological salt response | Root BM Ratio (Rbr) | 0.395 | 0.051 |
| Morphological salt response | Tiller No Ratio (Tbr) | −0.022 | 0.057 |
| Morphological salt response | Ht Lig Ratio (Hlr) | 0.665 | 0.036 |
| Morphological salt response | Ht FE Ratio (Hfr) | 0.939 | 0.019 |
Figure 3Genomic correlation of six latent variables. The size of each circle, degree of shading, and value reported correspond to the correlation between each pair of latent variables. Msr: morphological salt response; Iss: ionic components of salt stress; Grm: grain morphology; Yid: yield; Mrp: morphology; Flt: flowering time.
Figure 4Bayesian networks between six latent variables based on two score-based (4a: Hill Climbing and 4b: Tabu) and two hybrid (4c: Max-Min Hill Climbing and 4d: General 2-Phase Restricted Maximization) algorithms. The quality of the structure was evaluated by bootstrap resampling and model averaging across 500 replications. Labels of the edges refer to the strength and direction (parenthesis) which measure the confidence of the directed edge. The strength indicates the frequency of the edge is present and the direction measures the frequency of the direction conditioned on the presence of edge. BIC: Bayesian information criterion score. BGe: Bayesian Gaussian equivalent score. Msr: morphological salt response; Iss: ionic components of salt stress; Grm: grain morphology; Yid: yield; Mrp: morphology; Flt: flowering time.