Literature DB >> 33763106

Utility of Climatic Information via Combining Ability Models to Improve Genomic Prediction for Yield Within the Genomes to Fields Maize Project.

Diego Jarquin1, Natalia de Leon2, Cinta Romay3, Martin Bohn4, Edward S Buckler3,5, Ignacio Ciampitti6, Jode Edwards7,8, David Ertl9, Sherry Flint-Garcia10, Michael A Gore11, Christopher Graham12, Candice N Hirsch13, James B Holland14, David Hooker15, Shawn M Kaeppler2, Joseph Knoll16, Elizabeth C Lee17, Carolyn J Lawrence-Dill7,18,19, Jonathan P Lynch20, Stephen P Moose4, Seth C Murray21, Rebecca Nelson22, Torbert Rocheford23, James C Schnable1, Patrick S Schnable8,19, Margaret Smith5, Nathan Springer24, Peter Thomison25, Mitch Tuinstra23, Randall J Wisser26, Wenwei Xu27, Jianming Yu7, Aaron Lorenz13.   

Abstract

Genomic prediction provides an efficient alternative to conventional phenotypic selection for developing improved cultivars with desirable characteristics. New and improved methods to genomic prediction are continually being developed that attempt to deal with the integration of data types beyond genomic information. Modern automated weather systems offer the opportunity to capture continuous data on a range of environmental parameters at specific field locations. In principle, this information could characterize training and target environments and enhance predictive ability by incorporating weather characteristics as part of the genotype-by-environment (G×E) interaction component in prediction models. We assessed the usefulness of including weather data variables in genomic prediction models using a naïve environmental kinship model across 30 environments comprising the Genomes to Fields (G2F) initiative in 2014 and 2015. Specifically four different prediction scenarios were evaluated (i) tested genotypes in observed environments; (ii) untested genotypes in observed environments; (iii) tested genotypes in unobserved environments; and (iv) untested genotypes in unobserved environments. A set of 1,481 unique hybrids were evaluated for grain yield. Evaluations were conducted using five different models including main effect of environments; general combining ability (GCA) effects of the maternal and paternal parents modeled using the genomic relationship matrix; specific combining ability (SCA) effects between maternal and paternal parents; interactions between genetic (GCA and SCA) effects and environmental effects; and finally interactions between the genetics effects and environmental covariates. Incorporation of the genotype-by-environment interaction term improved predictive ability across all scenarios. However, predictive ability was not improved through inclusion of naive environmental covariates in G×E models. More research should be conducted to link the observed weather conditions with important physiological aspects in plant development to improve predictive ability through the inclusion of weather data.
Copyright © 2021 Jarquin, de Leon, Romay, Bohn, Buckler, Ciampitti, Edwards, Ertl, Flint-Garcia, Gore, Graham, Hirsch, Holland, Hooker, Kaeppler, Knoll, Lee, Lawrence-Dill, Lynch, Moose, Murray, Nelson, Rocheford, Schnable, Schnable, Smith, Springer, Thomison, Tuinstra, Wisser, Xu, Yu and Lorenz.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Genomes to Fields (G2F) initiative; general combining ability (GCA); genomic prediction; genotype-by-environment interaction (G×E); hybrid prediction; specific combining ability (SCA)

Year:  2021        PMID: 33763106      PMCID: PMC7982677          DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2020.592769

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Genet        ISSN: 1664-8021            Impact factor:   4.599


  9 in total

Review 1.  Advances in integrated genomic selection for rapid genetic gain in crop improvement: a review.

Authors:  C Anilkumar; N C Sunitha; Narayana Bhat Devate; S Ramesh
Journal:  Planta       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 4.540

2.  Overview of Genomic Prediction Methods and the Associated Assumptions on the Variance of Marker Effect, and on the Architecture of the Target Trait.

Authors:  Réka Howard; Diego Jarquin; José Crossa
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

3.  The utility of genomic prediction models in evolutionary genetics.

Authors:  Suzanne E McGaugh; Aaron J Lorenz; Lex E Flagel
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 5.530

4.  Environment-specific genomic prediction ability in maize using environmental covariates depends on environmental similarity to training data.

Authors:  Anna R Rogers; James B Holland
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 3.542

Review 5.  Genomic Selection in Sugarcane: Current Status and Future Prospects.

Authors:  Channappa Mahadevaiah; Chinnaswamy Appunu; Karen Aitken; Giriyapura Shivalingamurthy Suresha; Palanisamy Vignesh; Huskur Kumaraswamy Mahadeva Swamy; Ramanathan Valarmathi; Govind Hemaprabha; Ganesh Alagarasan; Bakshi Ram
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2021-09-27       Impact factor: 5.753

6.  Incorporation of Soil-Derived Covariates in Progeny Testing and Line Selection to Enhance Genomic Prediction Accuracy in Soybean Breeding.

Authors:  Caio Canella Vieira; Reyna Persa; Pengyin Chen; Diego Jarquin
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 4.772

7.  Optimizing predictions in IRRI's rice drought breeding program by leveraging 17 years of historical data and pedigree information.

Authors:  Apurva Khanna; Mahender Anumalla; Margaret Catolos; Sankalp Bhosale; Diego Jarquin; Waseem Hussain
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2022-09-20       Impact factor: 6.627

8.  Perspectives on Applications of Hierarchical Gene-To-Phenotype (G2P) Maps to Capture Non-stationary Effects of Alleles in Genomic Prediction.

Authors:  Owen M Powell; Kai P Voss-Fels; David R Jordan; Graeme Hammer; Mark Cooper
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 5.753

9.  Life-course trajectories of weight and their impact on the incidence of type 2 diabetes.

Authors:  Diego Yacamán-Méndez; Ylva Trolle-Lagerros; Minhao Zhou; Antonio Monteiro Ponce de Leon; Hrafnhildur Gudjonsdottir; Per Tynelius; Anton Lager
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-14       Impact factor: 4.379

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.