Literature DB >> 35181761

Improving lodgepole pine genomic evaluation using spatial correlation structure and SNP selection with single-step GBLUP.

Eduardo P Cappa1,2, Blaise Ratcliffe3, Charles Chen4, Barb R Thomas5, Yang Liu3, Jennifer Klutsch5,6, Xiaojing Wei5, Jaime Sebastian Azcona5, Andy Benowicz7, Shane Sadoway8, Nadir Erbilgin5, Yousry A El-Kassaby3.   

Abstract

Modeling environmental spatial heterogeneity can improve the efficiency of forest tree genomic evaluation. Furthermore, genotyping costs can be lowered by reducing the number of markers needed. We investigated the impact on variance components, breeding value accuracy, and bias of two phenotypic data adjustments (experimental design and autoregressive spatial models), and a relationship matrix calculated from a subset of markers selected for their ability to infer ancestry. Using a multiple-trait multiple-site single-step Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (ssGBLUP) approach, four scenarios (2 phenotype adjustments × 2 marker sets) were applied to diameter at breast height (DBH), height (HT), and resistance to western gall rust (WGR) in four open-pollinated progeny trials of lodgepole pine, with 1490 (out of 11,188) trees genotyped with 25,099 SNPs. As a control, we fitted the conventional ABLUP model using pedigree information. The highest heritability estimates were achieved for the ABLUP followed closely by the ssGBLUP with the full marker set and using the spatial phenotype adjustments. The highest predictive ability was obtained by using a reduced marker subset (8000 SNPs) when either the spatial (DBH: 0.429, and WGR: 0.513) or design (HT: 0.467) phenotype corrections were used. No significant difference was detected in prediction bias among the six fitted models, and all values were close to 1 (0.918-1.014). Results demonstrated that selecting informative markers, such as those capturing ancestry, can improve the predictive ability. The use of spatial correlation structure increased traits' heritability and reduced prediction bias, while increases in predictive ability were trait-dependent.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Genetics Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35181761      PMCID: PMC8986842          DOI: 10.1038/s41437-022-00508-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)        ISSN: 0018-067X            Impact factor:   3.832


  28 in total

1.  Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs.

Authors:  O F Christensen; P Madsen; B Nielsen; T Ostersen; G Su
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score.

Authors:  I Aguilar; I Misztal; D L Johnson; A Legarra; S Tsuruta; T J Lawlor
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.034

Review 3.  Forests and climate change: forcings, feedbacks, and the climate benefits of forests.

Authors:  Gordon B Bonan
Journal:  Science       Date:  2008-06-13       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Improving genomic prediction of growth and wood traits in Eucalyptus using phenotypes from non-genotyped trees by single-step GBLUP.

Authors:  Eduardo P Cappa; Bruno Marco de Lima; Orzenil B da Silva-Junior; Carla C Garcia; Shawn D Mansfield; Dario Grattapaglia
Journal:  Plant Sci       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 4.729

5.  Prediction accuracies for growth and wood attributes of interior spruce in space using genotyping-by-sequencing.

Authors:  Omnia Gamal El-Dien; Blaise Ratcliffe; Jaroslav Klápště; Charles Chen; Ilga Porth; Yousry A El-Kassaby
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2015-05-09       Impact factor: 3.969

6.  Gene expression predictions and networks in natural populations supports the omnigenic theory.

Authors:  Aurélien Chateigner; Marie-Claude Lesage-Descauses; Odile Rogier; Véronique Jorge; Jean-Charles Leplé; Véronique Brunaud; Christine Paysant-Le Roux; Ludivine Soubigou-Taconnat; Marie-Laure Martin-Magniette; Leopoldo Sanchez; Vincent Segura
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2020-06-22       Impact factor: 3.969

7.  Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped.

Authors:  Ole F Christensen; Mogens S Lund
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2010-01-27       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  The importance of phenotypic data analysis for genomic prediction - a case study comparing different spatial models in rye.

Authors:  Angela-Maria Bernal-Vasquez; Jens Möhring; Malthe Schmidt; Manfred Schönleben; Chris-Carolin Schön; Hans-Peter Piepho
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2014-08-04       Impact factor: 3.969

9.  Evaluation of the efficiency of genomic versus pedigree predictions for growth and wood quality traits in Scots pine.

Authors:  Ainhoa Calleja-Rodriguez; Jin Pan; Tomas Funda; Zhiqiang Chen; John Baison; Fikret Isik; Sara Abrahamsson; Harry X Wu
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2020-11-16       Impact factor: 3.969

Review 10.  Genomic interventions for sustainable agriculture.

Authors:  Abhishek Bohra; Uday Chand Jha; Ian D Godwin; Rajeev Kumar Varshney
Journal:  Plant Biotechnol J       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 9.803

View more
  1 in total

1.  Multiple-trait analyses improved the accuracy of genomic prediction and the power of genome-wide association of productivity and climate change-adaptive traits in lodgepole pine.

Authors:  Eduardo P Cappa; Charles Chen; Jennifer G Klutsch; Jaime Sebastian-Azcona; Blaise Ratcliffe; Xiaojing Wei; Letitia Da Ros; Aziz Ullah; Yang Liu; Andy Benowicz; Shane Sadoway; Shawn D Mansfield; Nadir Erbilgin; Barb R Thomas; Yousry A El-Kassaby
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2022-07-23       Impact factor: 4.547

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.