Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 130, Issue 7, pp 1431–1440 | Cite as

Genomic models with genotype × environment interaction for predicting hybrid performance: an application in maize hybrids

  • Rocío Acosta-Pech
  • José Crossa
  • Gustavo de los Campos
  • Simon Teyssèdre
  • Bruno Claustres
  • Sergio Pérez-Elizalde
  • Paulino Pérez-RodríguezEmail author
Original Article


Key message

A new genomic model that incorporates genotype × environment interaction gave increased prediction accuracy of untested hybrid response for traits such as percent starch content, percent dry matter content and silage yield of maize hybrids.


The prediction of hybrid performance (HP) is very important in agricultural breeding programs. In plant breeding, multi-environment trials play an important role in the selection of important traits, such as stability across environments, grain yield and pest resistance. Environmental conditions modulate gene expression causing genotype × environment interaction (G × E), such that the estimated genetic correlations of the performance of individual lines across environments summarize the joint action of genes and environmental conditions. This article proposes a genomic statistical model that incorporates G × E for general and specific combining ability for predicting the performance of hybrids in environments. The proposed model can also be applied to any other hybrid species with distinct parental pools. In this study, we evaluated the predictive ability of two HP prediction models using a cross-validation approach applied in extensive maize hybrid data, comprising 2724 hybrids derived from 507 dent lines and 24 flint lines, which were evaluated for three traits in 58 environments over 12 years; analyses were performed for each year. On average, genomic models that include the interaction of general and specific combining ability with environments have greater predictive ability than genomic models without interaction with environments (ranging from 12 to 22%, depending on the trait). We concluded that including G × E in the prediction of untested maize hybrids increases the accuracy of genomic models.


Prediction Accuracy General Combine Ability Specific Combine Ability Dent Line Genomic Prediction 
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.



The authors appreciate the positive and detailed comments from two anonymous reviewers and the time invested by the Associated Editor handling the manuscript. These contributions significantly improved the quality and clarity of the article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

122_2017_2898_MOESM1_ESM.docx (41 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 45 KB)


  1. Bernardo R (1994) Prediction of maize single-cross performance using RFLPs and information from related hybrids. Crop Sci 34:20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernardo R (1996a) Best linear unbiased prediction of maize single-cross performance. Crop Sci 36:50–56. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1996.00111183X003600010009x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bernardo R (1996b) Best linear unbiased prediction of the performance of crosses in maize. Crop Sci 41:68–71. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2001.41168x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernardo R (1999) Marker-assisted best linear unbiased prediction of single-cross performance. Crop Sci 39:1277–1282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernardo R (2002) Breeding for quantitative traits in plants. Stemma Press, WoodburyGoogle Scholar
  6. Browning BL, Browning SR (2009) A unified approach to genotype imputation and haplotype-phase inference for large data sets of trios and unrelated individuals. Am J Hum Genet 84(2):210–223. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.01.005 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Burgueño J, de los Campos G, Weigel K, Crossa J (2012) Genomic prediction of breeding values when modeling genotype × environment interaction using pedigree and dense molecular markers. Crop Sci 52:707–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Covarrubias-Pazaran G (2016) Genome-assisted prediction of quantitative traits using the R Package Sommer. Plos One 11(6):e0156744. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156744 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Crossa J, Pérez-Rodríguez P, de los Campos G, Mahuku G, Dreisigacker D, Magorokosho C (2011) Genomic selection and prediction in plant breeding. J Crop Improv 25:239–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawson JC, Endelman JB, Heslot N, Crossa J, Poland J et al (2013) The use of unbalanced historical data for genomic selection in an international wheat breeding program. Field Crops Res 154:12–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de los Campos G, Pérez-Rodríguez P (2016) BGLR: Bayesian generalized linear regression. R package v. 1.0.5Google Scholar
  12. de los Campos G, Hickey JM, Pong-Wong R, Daetwyler HD, Calus MPL (2013) Whole genome regression and prediction methods applied to plant and animal breeding. Genetics 193:327–345CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Duvick DN, Smith JSC, Cooper M (2004) Long-term selection in a commercial hybrid maize breeding program. Plant Breed Rev Part 2(24):109–152Google Scholar
  14. Federer WT, Raghavarao D (1975) On augmented designs. Biometrics 31:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geman S, Geman D (1984) Stochastic relaxation, Gibbs distributions and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 6(6):721–741CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Golob GH, Van Loan CF (1996) Matrix computations, 3rd edn. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  17. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference and prediction, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heslot N, Akdemir D, Sorrells ME, Jannink JL (2014) Integrating environmental covariates and crop modeling into the genomic selection framework to predict genotype by environment interactions. Theor App Genet 127(2):463–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jarquín D, Crossa J, Lacaze X, Cheyron PD, Daucourt J et al (2014) A reaction norm model for genomic selection using high-dimensional genomic and environmental data. Theor Appl Genet 127:595–607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kadam DC, Potts SM, Bohn MO, Lipka A, Lorenz AJ (2016) Genomic prediction of single crosses in the early stages of a maize hybrid breeding pipeline. G3 Genes Genom Genet 6:3443–3453. doi: 10.1534/g3.116.031286 Google Scholar
  21. Lehermeier C, Krämer N, Bauer E, Bauland C, Camisan C et al (2014) Usefulness of multiparental populations of maize (Zea mays L.) for genome-based prediction. Genetics 198:3–16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. López-Cruz M, Crossa J, Bonnet D, Dreisigacker S, Poland J, Jannink L-L, Singh RP, Autrique E, de los Campos G (2015) Increased prediction accuracy in wheat breeding trials using a marker × environment interaction genomic selection model. G3 Genes Genom Genet. doi: 10.1534/g3.114.016097 Google Scholar
  23. Massman J, Gordillo A, Lorenzana RE, Bernardo R (2013) Genome-wide predictions from maize single-cross data. Theor Appl Genet 126:13–22. doi: 10.1007/s00122-012-1955 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Meuwissen, THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819–1829PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Pérez-Rodríguez P, de los Campos G (2014) Genome-wide regression & prediction with the BGLR statistical package. Genetics 198:483–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pérez-Rodríguez P, Crossa J, Bondalapati K, De Meyer G, Pita F, de los Campos G (2015) A pedigree-based reaction norm model for prediction of cotton yield in multi-environment trials. Crop Sci 55(3):1143–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Piepho HP (2009) Ridge regression and extensions for genome-wide selection in maize. Crop Sci 49(4):1165–1176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Accessed 4 Apr 2017
  29. Rodríguez-Ramilo ST, García-Cortés LA, Rodríguez de Cara MA (2015) Artificial selection with traditional of genomic relationships: consequences in coancestry and genetic diversity. Front Genet 6:127. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2015.00127 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Schrag TA, Möhring J, Melchinger AE, Kusterer B, Dhillon BS, Piepho HP, Frisch M (2010) Prediction of hybrid performance in maize using molecular markers and joint analyses of hybrids and parental inbreds. Theor Appl Genet 120(2):451–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Technow F, Melchinger AE (2013) Genomic prediction of dichotomous traits with Bayesian logistic models. Theor Appl Genet 125(6):1133–1143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Technow F, Riedelsheimer E, Schrag TA, Melchinger AE (2012) Genomic prediction of hybrid performance in maize with models incorporating dominance and population specific marker effects. Theor Appl Genet 125(6):1181–1194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Technow F, Schrag A, Schipprack W, Bauer E, Simianer H, Melchinger AE (2014) Genome properties and prospects of genomic prediction of hybrid performance in a breeding program of maize. Genetics 197:1343–1355CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. van Eeuwijk FA, Boer MP et al (2010) Mixed model approaches for the identification of QTLs within a maize hybrid breeding program. Theor Appl Genet 120:429–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. VanRaden PM (2008) Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci 91:4414–4423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Xu S, Zhu D, Zhang Q (2014) Predicting hybrid performance in rice using genomic best linear unbiased prediction. Proc Natl Acad Sci 11(34):12456–12461. doi:10.1073/pnas.1413750111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhao Y, Zeng J, Fernando R, Reif J (2013) Genomic prediction of hybrid wheat performance. Crop Sci 53:1–9. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2012.08.0463 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rocío Acosta-Pech
    • 1
  • José Crossa
    • 2
  • Gustavo de los Campos
    • 3
  • Simon Teyssèdre
    • 4
  • Bruno Claustres
    • 4
  • Sergio Pérez-Elizalde
    • 1
  • Paulino Pérez-Rodríguez
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Colegio de Postgraduados, CP 56230MontecillosMéxico
  2. 2.Biometrics and Statistics Unit of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT)México DFMéxico
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.RAGT 2n, Analytics Research TeamDruelleFrance

Personalised recommendations