Literature DB >> 33391305

How Population Structure Impacts Genomic Selection Accuracy in Cross-Validation: Implications for Practical Breeding.

Christian R Werner1, R Chris Gaynor1, Gregor Gorjanc1, John M Hickey1, Tobias Kox2, Amine Abbadi2, Gunhild Leckband3, Rod J Snowdon4, Andreas Stahl4,5.   

Abstract

Over the last two decades, the application of genomic selection has been extensively studied in various crop species, and it has become a common practice to report prediction accuracies using cross validation. However, genomic prediction accuracies obtained from random cross validation can be strongly inflated due to population or family structure, a characteristic shared by many breeding populations. An understanding of the effect of population and family structure on prediction accuracy is essential for the successful application of genomic selection in plant breeding programs. The objective of this study was to make this effect and its implications for practical breeding programs comprehensible for breeders and scientists with a limited background in quantitative genetics and genomic selection theory. We, therefore, compared genomic prediction accuracies obtained from different random cross validation approaches and within-family prediction in three different prediction scenarios. We used a highly structured population of 940 Brassica napus hybrids coming from 46 testcross families and two subpopulations. Our demonstrations show how genomic prediction accuracies obtained from among-family predictions in random cross validation and within-family predictions capture different measures of prediction accuracy. While among-family prediction accuracy measures prediction accuracy of both the parent average component and the Mendelian sampling term, within-family prediction only measures how accurately the Mendelian sampling term can be predicted. With this paper we aim to foster a critical approach to different measures of genomic prediction accuracy and a careful analysis of values observed in genomic selection experiments and reported in literature.
Copyright © 2020 Werner, Gaynor, Gorjanc, Hickey, Kox, Abbadi, Leckband, Snowdon and Stahl.

Entities:  

Keywords:  genomic prediction; nested association mapping population; oilseed rape; predictive breeding; structure

Year:  2020        PMID: 33391305      PMCID: PMC7772221          DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.592977

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Plant Sci        ISSN: 1664-462X            Impact factor:   5.753


  8 in total

1.  Genetics, not environment, contributed to winter wheat yield gains in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Delvin So; Alexandra Smith; Ellen Sparry; Lewis Lukens
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2022-03-29       Impact factor: 5.699

2.  Choosing the right tool: Leveraging of plant genetic resources in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) benefits from selection of a suitable genomic prediction model.

Authors:  Marcel O Berkner; Albert W Schulthess; Yusheng Zhao; Yong Jiang; Markus Oppermann; Jochen C Reif
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2022-10-01       Impact factor: 5.574

3.  Genomic Prediction Accuracy of Stripe Rust in Six Spring Wheat Populations by Modeling Genotype by Environment Interaction.

Authors:  Kassa Semagn; Muhammad Iqbal; Diego Jarquin; Harpinder Randhawa; Reem Aboukhaddour; Reka Howard; Izabela Ciechanowska; Momna Farzand; Raman Dhariwal; Colin W Hiebert; Amidou N'Diaye; Curtis Pozniak; Dean Spaner
Journal:  Plants (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-30

4.  Across-population genomic prediction in grapevine opens up promising prospects for breeding.

Authors:  Charlotte Brault; Vincent Segura; Patrice This; Loïc Le Cunff; Timothée Flutre; Pierre François; Thierry Pons; Jean-Pierre Péros; Agnès Doligez
Journal:  Hortic Res       Date:  2022-02-19       Impact factor: 7.291

5.  Genomic selection for spot blotch in bread wheat breeding panels, full-sibs and half-sibs and index-based selection for spot blotch, heading and plant height.

Authors:  Philomin Juliana; Xinyao He; Jesse Poland; Krishna K Roy; Paritosh K Malaker; Vinod K Mishra; Ramesh Chand; Sandesh Shrestha; Uttam Kumar; Chandan Roy; Navin C Gahtyari; Arun K Joshi; Ravi P Singh; Pawan K Singh
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2022-04-13       Impact factor: 5.574

6.  Prediction ability of genome-wide markers in Pinus taeda L. within and between population is affected by relatedness to the training population and trait genetic architecture.

Authors:  Edwin Lauer; James Holland; Fikret Isik
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 3.542

7.  Optimizing Genomic-Enabled Prediction in Small-Scale Maize Hybrid Breeding Programs: A Roadmap Review.

Authors:  Roberto Fritsche-Neto; Giovanni Galli; Karina Lima Reis Borges; Germano Costa-Neto; Filipe Couto Alves; Felipe Sabadin; Danilo Hottis Lyra; Pedro Patric Pinho Morais; Luciano Rogério Braatz de Andrade; Italo Granato; Jose Crossa
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 5.753

8.  Can Cross-Country Genomic Predictions Be a Reasonable Strategy to Support Germplasm Exchange? - A Case Study With Hydrogen Cyanide in Cassava.

Authors:  Lívia Gomes Torres; Eder Jorge de Oliveira; Alex C Ogbonna; Guillaume J Bauchet; Lukas A Mueller; Camila Ferreira Azevedo; Fabyano Fonseca E Silva; Guilherme Ferreira Simiqueli; Marcos Deon Vilela de Resende
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2021-12-08       Impact factor: 5.753

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.