Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 113, Issue 5, pp 809–819 | Cite as

Joint modeling of additive and non-additive genetic line effects in single field trials

  • Helena Oakey
  • Arūnas Verbyla
  • Wayne Pitchford
  • Brian Cullis
  • Haydn Kuchel
Original Paper

Abstract

A statistical approach is presented for selection of best performing lines for commercial release and best parents for future breeding programs from standard agronomic trials. The method involves the partitioning of the genetic effect of a line into additive and non-additive effects using pedigree based inter-line relationships, in a similar manner to that used in animal breeding. A difference is the ability to estimate non-additive effects. Line performance can be assessed by an overall genetic line effect with greater accuracy than when ignoring pedigree information and the additive effects are predicted breeding values. A generalized definition of heritability is developed to account for the complex models presented.

Keywords

Epistatic Effect Total Genetic Variation Pedigree Information Narrow Sense Heritability Best Linear Unbiased Predictor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Grain Research Development Corporation (GRDC) who fund the research of Helena Oakey through a Grains Industry Research Scholarship. Arūnas Verbyla and Brian Cullis also thank GRDC. We are grateful to the breeders and technical staff of Australian Grain Technologies for access to the grain yield and pedigree data used in this study.

References

  1. Besag J, Kempton R (1986) Statistical analysis of field experiments using neighbouring plots. Biometrics 42:231–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown D, Tier B, Reverter A, Banks R, Graser H (2000) OVIS: a multiple trait breeding value estimation program for genetic evaluation of sheep. Wool Technol Sheep Breed 48Google Scholar
  3. Cooper M, Hammer GL (2005) Preface to special issue: complex traits and plant breeding—can we understand the complexities of gene-to-phenotype relationships and use such knowledge to enhance plant breeding outcomes? Aust J Agric Res 56:869–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Costa e Silva J, Borralho NMG, Potts BM (1994) Additive and non-additive genetic parameters from clonally replicated and seedling progenies of Eucalyptus globulus. Genetics 138:963–971Google Scholar
  5. Crepieux S, Lebreton C, Servin B, Charmet G (2004) Quantitative trait loci QTL detection in multicross inbred designs: recovering QTL identical-by-descent status information from marker data. Genetics 168:1737–1749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crianiceanu CM, Ruppert D (2004) Likelihood ratio tests in linear mixed models with one variance component. J Roy Stat Soc B66:165–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cullis BR, Gleeson AC (1991) Spatial analysis of field experiments—an extension to two dimensions. Biometrics 47:1449–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cullis BR, Smith A, Coombes N (2006) On the design of early generation variety trials with correlated data. J Agric Biol Environ Stat (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Davik J, Honne B (2005) Genetic variance and breeding values for resistance to wind-borne disease [Sphaeotheca macularis (wallr. exfr.)] in strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa duch.) estimated by exploring mixed models and spatial models and pedigree information. Theor Appl Genet 111:256–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Durel CE, Laurens F, Fouillet A, Lespinasse Y (1998) Utilization of pedigree information to estimate genetic parameters from large unbalanced data sets in apple. Theor Appl Genet 96:1077–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dutkowski GW, Costa e Silva J, Gilmour AR, Lopez GA (2002) Spatial analysis methods for forest genetic trials. Can J For Res 32:2201–2214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eckermann PJ, Verbyla AP, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2001) The analysis of quantitative traits in wheat mapping populations. Aust J Agric Res 52:1195–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Longman Group LtdGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilmour AR, Cullis B, Verbyla AP (1997) Accounting for natural and extraneous variation in the analysis of field experiments. J Agric Biol Environ Stat 2:269–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gilmour AR, Cullis BR, Gogel B, Welham SJ, Thompson R (2005) ASReml, user guide. Release 2.0. VSN International Ltd, Hemel HempsteadGoogle Scholar
  16. Henderson CR (1976) A simple method for computing the inverse of a numerator relationship matrix used in the prediction of breeding values. Biometrics 32:69–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. John J, Ruggiero K, Williams E (2002) ALPHA(n)-designs. Aust NZ J Stat 44:457–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin R, Eccleston J, Chan B (2004) Efficient factorial experiments when the data are spatially correlated. J Stat Plan Inference 126:377–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meuwissen THE, Luo Z (1992) Computing inbreeding coefficients in large populations. Genet Sel Evol 24:305–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Patterson HD, Thompson R (1971) Recovery of inter-block information when block sizes are unequal. Biometrika 58:545–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. R Development Core Team (2005) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0Google Scholar
  22. Self SG, Liang K-Y (1987) Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under nonstandard conditions. J Am Stat Assoc 82:605–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Smith AB, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2005) The analysis of crop cultivar breeding and evaluation trials: an overview of current mixed model approaches. J Agric Sci 143:1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sneller CH (1994) SAS programs for calculating coefficients of parentage. Crop Sci 34:1679–1680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stram DO, Lee JW (1994) Variance components testing in the longitudinal mixed effects model. Biometrics 50:1171–1177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Topal A, Aydin C, Akgun N, Babaoglu M (2004) Diallel cross analysis in durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) identification of best parents for some kernel physical features. Field Crops Res 87:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Verbyla AP, Cullis BR, Kenward M, Welham S (1999) The analysis of designed experiments and longitudinal data using smoothing splines (with discussion). Appl Stat 48:269–311Google Scholar
  28. Viana JMS (2005) Dominance, epistasis, heritabilities and expected genetic gain. Genet Mol Biol 28:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Walsh B (2005) The struggle to exploit non-additive variation. Aust J Agric Res 56:873–881CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. van der Werf J, de Boer IJM (1990) Estimation of additive genetic variances when base populations are selected. J Anim Sci 68:3124–3132PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wright S (1922) Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. Am Nat 56:330–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helena Oakey
    • 1
  • Arūnas Verbyla
    • 1
  • Wayne Pitchford
    • 2
  • Brian Cullis
    • 3
  • Haydn Kuchel
    • 4
  1. 1.BiometricsSA, School of Agriculture and WineUniversity of AdelaideGlen OsmondAustralia
  2. 2.Animal Science, School of Agriculture and WineUniversity of AdelaideRoseworthyAustralia
  3. 3.Biometrics, NSW Department of Primary IndustriesWagga Wagga Agricultural Institute, Private Mail Bag WaggaWaggaAustralia
  4. 4.Plant Breeding UnitAustralian Grain TechnologiesRoseworthyAustralia

Personalised recommendations