Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 125, Issue 8, pp 1639–1645 | Cite as

Genome-based prediction of test cross performance in two subsequent breeding cycles

  • Nina Hofheinz
  • Dietrich Borchardt
  • Knuth Weissleder
  • Matthias Frisch
Original Paper


Genome-based prediction of genetic values is expected to overcome shortcomings that limit the application of QTL mapping and marker-assisted selection in plant breeding. Our goal was to study the genome-based prediction of test cross performance with genetic effects that were estimated using genotypes from the preceding breeding cycle. In particular, our objectives were to employ a ridge regression approach that approximates best linear unbiased prediction of genetic effects, compare cross validation with validation using genetic material of the subsequent breeding cycle, and investigate the prospects of genome-based prediction in sugar beet breeding. We focused on the traits sugar content and standard molasses loss (ML) and used a set of 310 sugar beet lines to estimate genetic effects at 384 SNP markers. In cross validation, correlations >0.8 between observed and predicted test cross performance were observed for both traits. However, in validation with 56 lines from the next breeding cycle, a correlation of 0.8 could only be observed for sugar content, for standard ML the correlation reduced to 0.4. We found that ridge regression based on preliminary estimates of the heritability provided a very good approximation of best linear unbiased prediction and was not accompanied with a loss in prediction accuracy. We conclude that prediction accuracy assessed with cross validation within one cycle of a breeding program can not be used as an indicator for the accuracy of predicting lines of the next cycle. Prediction of lines of the next cycle seems promising for traits with high heritabilities.



We thank Gregory Mahone for proof reading the manuscript. We thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.


  1. Albrecht T, Wimmer V, Auinger HJ, Erbe M, Knaak C, Ouzunova M, Simianer H, Schön CC (2011) Genome-based prediction of testcross values in maize. Theor Appl Genet 123:339–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernardo R (2009) Genomewide selection for rapid introgression of exotic germplasm in maize. Crop Sci 49:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernardo R, Yu J (2007) Prospects for genomewide selection for quantitative traits in maize. Crop Sci 47:1082–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crossa J, de los Campos G, Pérez P, Gianola D, Burgueño J, Araus JL, Makumbi D, Singh RP, Dreisigacker S, Yan J, Arief V, Bänzinger M, Braun HJ (2010) Prediction of genetic values of quantitative traits in plant breeding using pedigree and molecular markers. Genetics 186:713–724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daetwyler HD, Pong-Wong R, Villanueva B, Wooliams JA (2010) The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 185:1021–1031PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gianola D, van Kaam JBCHM (2008) Reproducing kernel hilbert spaces regression methods for genomic assisted prediction of quantitative traits. Genetics 178:2289–2303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gianola D, Fernando RL, Stella A (2006) Genomic-assisted prediction of genetic value with semiparametric procedures. Genetics 173:1761–1776PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Goddard ME, Hayes BJ (2007) Genomic selection. J Anim Breed Genet 124:323–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819–1829PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Park T, Casella G (2008) The Bayesian Lasso. J Am Stat Assoc 103:681–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Piepho HP (2009) Ridge regression and extensions for genomewide selection in maize. Crop Sci 49:1165–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Piepho HP, Möhring J (2007) Computing heritability and selection response from unbalanced plant breeding trials. Genetics 177:1881–1888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP (1992) Numerical recipes in C: the art of scientific computing, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Schneider K, Schäfer-Pregl R, Borchardt DC, Salamini F (2002) Mapping QTLs for sucrose content, yield and quality in a sugar beet population fingerprinted by EST-related markers. Theor Appl Genet 104:1107–1113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Searle SR (1987) Linear models for unbalanced data. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Searle SR, Casella G, McCulloch CE (1992) Variance components. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shepherd RK, Meuwissen THE, Woolliams JA (2010) Genomic selection and complex trait prediction using a fast EM algorithm applied to genomewide-markers. BMC Bioinformatics 11:529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wong CK, Bernardo R (2008) Genome wide selection in oil palm: increasing selection gain per unit time and cost with small populations. Theor Appl Genet 116:815–824PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Xu S (2003) Estimating polygenic effects using markers of the entire genome. Genetics 163:789–801PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina Hofheinz
    • 1
  • Dietrich Borchardt
    • 2
  • Knuth Weissleder
    • 2
  • Matthias Frisch
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Agronomy and Plant Breeding IIJustus Liebig UniversityGiessenGermany
  2. 2.KWS Saat AGEinbeckGermany

Personalised recommendations