Genome-based prediction of testcross values in maize

  • Theresa Albrecht
  • Valentin Wimmer
  • Hans-Jürgen Auinger
  • Malena Erbe
  • Carsten Knaak
  • Milena Ouzunova
  • Henner Simianer
  • Chris-Carolin Schön
Original Paper

Abstract

This is the first large-scale experimental study on genome-based prediction of testcross values in an advanced cycle breeding population of maize. The study comprised testcross progenies of 1,380 doubled haploid lines of maize derived from 36 crosses and phenotyped for grain yield and grain dry matter content in seven locations. The lines were genotyped with 1,152 single nucleotide polymorphism markers. Pedigree data were available for three generations. We used best linear unbiased prediction and stratified cross-validation to evaluate the performance of prediction models differing in the modeling of relatedness between inbred lines and in the calculation of genome-based coefficients of similarity. The choice of similarity coefficient did not affect prediction accuracies. Models including genomic information yielded significantly higher prediction accuracies than the model based on pedigree information alone. Average prediction accuracies based on genomic data were high even for a complex trait like grain yield (0.72–0.74) when the cross-validation scheme allowed for a high degree of relatedness between the estimation and the test set. When predictions were performed across distantly related families, prediction accuracies decreased significantly (0.47–0.48). Prediction accuracies decreased with decreasing sample size but were still high when the population size was halved (0.67–0.69). The results from this study are encouraging with respect to genome-based prediction of the genetic value of untested lines in advanced cycle breeding populations and the implementation of genomic selection in the breeding process.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the AgroClustEr “Synbreed—Synergistic plant and animal breeding” (FKZ: 0315528A).

Supplementary material

122_2011_1587_MOESM1_ESM.doc (540 kb)
Supplemental Fig. 1 Linkage disequilibrium between pairs of marker loci within the same linkage group as a function of physical distance on the reference map for 31 parental inbred lines (DOC 540 kb)

References

  1. Akaike H (1974) A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Auto Control 19:716–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernardo R (1993) Estimation of coefficient of coancestry using molecular markers in maize. Theor Appl Genet 85:1055–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernardo R (2002) Breeding for quantitative traits in plants. Stemma Press, Woodbury, MNGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernardo R, Yu J (2007) Prospects for genomewide selection for quantitative traits in maize. Crop Sci 47:1082–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crossa J, de los Campos G, Pérez P, Gianola D, Burgueño J, Araus JL, Makumbi D, Singh RP, Dreisigacker S, Yan J, Arief V, Banzinger M, Braun HJ (2010) Prediction of genetic values of quantitative traits in plant breeding using pedigree and molecular markers. Genetics 186:713–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dekkers JCM (2007) Prediction of response to marker-assisted and genomic selection using selection index theory. J Anim Breed Genet 124:331–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foulkes AS (2009) Applied statistical genetics with R: for population-based association studies, 1st edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilmour AR, Gogel BJ, Cullis BR, Thompson R (2009) ASReml user guide release 3.0. VSN International Ltd. Hemel HempsteadGoogle Scholar
  9. Goddard ME (2008) Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximization of long term response. Genetica 136:245–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grubbs FE (1950) Sample criteria for testing outlying observations. Ann Math Stat 21:27–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM (2007) The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics 177:2389–2397PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Habier D, Tetens J, Seefried FR, Lichtner P, Thaller G (2010) The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle. Genet Sel Evol 42:5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2008) Technical note: prediction of breeding values using marker-derived relationship matrices. J Anim Sci 86:2089–2092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hayes BJ, Daetwyler HD, Bowman P, Moser G, Tier B, Crump R, Khatkar M, Raadsma HW, Goddard ME (2009a) Accuracy of genomic selection: comparing theory and results. Proc Assoc Adv Anim Breed Genet 18:34–37Google Scholar
  15. Hayes BJ, Visscher PM, Goddard ME (2009b) Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix. Genet Res 91:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Henderson CR (1984) Applications of linear models in animal breeding. University of Guelph, GuelphGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill WG, Robertson A (1968) Linkage disequilibrium in finite populations. Theor Appl Genet 38:226–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jannink JL, Lorenz AJ, Iwata H (2010) Genomic selection in plant breeding: from theory to practice. Brief Funct Genomics 9:166–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Legarra A, Robert-Granie C, Manfredi E, Elsen J (2008) Performance of genomic selection in mice. Genetics 180:611–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lorenzana R, Bernardo R (2009) Accuracy of genotypic value predictions for marker-based selection in biparental plant populations. Theor Appl Genet 120:151–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Luan T, Wooliams JA, Lien S, Kent M, Svendsen M, Meuwissen THE (2009) The accuracy of genomic selection in Norwegian red cattle assessed by cross-validation. Genetics 183:1119–1126PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Malécot G (1948) Les mathématiques de l’hérédité. Masson et Cie, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Melchinger AE, Messmer MM, Lee M, Woodman WL, Lamkey KR (1991) Diversity and relationships among U.S. maize inbreds revealed by restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Crop Sci 31:669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Melchinger AE, Utz HF, Schön CC (1998) Quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping using different testers and independent population samples in maize reveals low power of QTL detection and large bias in estimates of QTL effects. Genetics 149:383–403PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819–1829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Moser G, Khatkar MS, Hayes BJ, Raadsma HW (2010) Accuracy of direct genomic values in Holstein bulls and cows using subsets of SNP markers. Genet Sel Evol 42:37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mosier CI (1951) I. Problems and designs of cross-validation 1. Educ Psychol Measurement 11:5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Piepho HP (2009) Ridge regression and extensions for genomewide selection in maize. Crop Sci 49:1165–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Piepho HP, Möhring J (2007) Computing heritability and selection response from unbalanced plant breeding trials. Genetics 177:1881–1888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Piepho HP, Richter C, Williams E (2008) Nearest neighbor adjustment and linear variance models in plant breeding trials. Biom J 50:164–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reif JC, Melchinger AE, Frisch M (2005) Genetical and mathematical properties of similarity and dissimilarity coefficients applied in plant breeding and seed bank management. Crop Sci 45:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Röber F, Gordillo G, Geiger HH (2005) In vivo haploid induction in maize—performance of new inducers and significance of doubled haploid lines in hybrid breeding. Maydica 50:275–283Google Scholar
  33. Rogers JS (1972) Measures of genetic similarity and genetic distance. In: Studies in genetics VII. University of Texas, Austin, pp 145–153Google Scholar
  34. Schaeffer LR (2006) Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle. J Anim Breed Genet 123:218–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schnable PS, Ware D, Fulton RS, Stein JC, Wei F, Pasternak S, Liang C, Zhang J, Fulton L, Graves TA, Minx P, Reily AD, Courtney L et al (2009) The B73 maize genome: Complexity, diversity, and dynamics. Science 326:1112–1115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schnell FW (1965) Die Covarianz zwischen Verwandten in einer genorthogonalen Population. I. Allgemeine Theorie. Biom Z 7:1–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schön CC, Utz HF, Groh S, Truberg B, Openshaw S, Melchinger AE (2004) Quantitative trait locus mapping based on resampling in a vast maize testcross experiment and its relevance to quantitative genetics for complex traits. Genetics 167:485–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Self SG, Liang KY (1987) Asymptotic properties of maximum likelihood estimators and likelihood ratio tests under nonstandard conditions. J Am Stat Ass 82:605–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sneath PH, Sokal RR (1973) Numerical taxonomy: the principles and practice of numerical classification. Freeman, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  40. Stuber CW, Cockerham CC (1966) Gene effects and variances in hybrid populations. Genetics 54:1279–1286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. VanRaden PM (2008) Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci 91:4414–4423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. VanRaden PM, Tassell CV, Wiggans GR, Sonstegard TS, Schnabel RD, Taylor JF, Schenkel FS (2009) Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci 92:16–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Williams ER, John JA, Whitaker D (2006) Construction of resolvable spatial row–column designs. Biometrics 62:03–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhong S, Dekkers JCM, Fernando RL, Jannink JL (2009) Factors affecting accuracy from genomic selection in populations derived from multiple inbred lines: A barley case study. Genetics 182:355–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Theresa Albrecht
    • 1
  • Valentin Wimmer
    • 1
  • Hans-Jürgen Auinger
    • 1
  • Malena Erbe
    • 2
  • Carsten Knaak
    • 3
  • Milena Ouzunova
    • 3
  • Henner Simianer
    • 2
  • Chris-Carolin Schön
    • 1
  1. 1.Plant BreedingTechnische Universität MünchenFreisingGermany
  2. 2.Department of Animal SciencesGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  3. 3.KWS SAAT AGEinbeckGermany

Personalised recommendations