Advertisement

Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 132, Issue 2, pp 347–353 | Cite as

Small ad hoc versus large general training populations for genomewide selection in maize biparental crosses

  • Sofía P. Brandariz
  • Rex BernardoEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Key message

For genomewide selection in each biparental population, it is better to use a smaller ad hoc training population than a single, large training population.

Abstract

In genomewide selection, different types of training populations can be used for a biparental population made from homozygous parents (A and B). Our objective was to determine whether the response to selection (R) and predictive ability (rMP) in an A/B population are higher with a large training population that is used for all biparental crosses, or with a smaller ad hoc training population highly related to the A/B population. We studied 969 biparental maize (Zea mays L.) populations phenotyped at four to 12 environments. Parent–offspring marker imputation was done for 2911 single nucleotide polymorphism loci. For 27 A/B populations, training populations were constructed by pooling: (1) all prior populations with A as one parent (A/*, where * is a related inbred) and with B as one parent (*/B) [general combining ability (GCA) model]; (2) A/* or */B crosses only; (3) all */* crosses (same background model, SB); and (4) all */*, A/*, and */B crosses (SB + GCA model). The SB model training population was 450–6000% as large as the GCA model training populations, but the mean coefficient of coancestry between the training population and A/B population was lower for the SB model (0.44) than for the GCA model (0.71). The GCA model had the highest R and rMP for all traits. For yield, R was 0.22 Mg ha−1 with the GCA model and 0.15 Mg ha−1 with the SB model. We concluded that it is best to use an ad hoc training population for each A/B population.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Sofía P. Brandariz was supported by Ph.D. fellowship funded by Monsanto. We thank Drs. David Butruille, Mike Lohuis, and Sam Eathington for allowing us to use the data sets in this study, and Dr. Shengqiang Zhong for his valuable input and insights on our work with these data sets since 2011.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bernardo R (1993) Estimation of coefficient of coancestry using molecular markers in maize. Theor Appl Genet 85:1055–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernardo R (2010) Breeding for quantitative traits in plants, 2nd edn. Stemma Press, Woodbury. ISBN 978-0-9720724-1-0Google Scholar
  3. Brandariz SP, Bernardo R (2018) Maintaining the accuracy of genomewide predictions when selection has occurred in the training population. Crop Sci 58:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Combs E, Bernardo R (2013) Accuracy of genomewide selection for different traits with constant population size, heritability, and number of markers. Plant Genome.  https://doi.org/10.3835/plantgenome2012.11.0030 Google Scholar
  5. Daetwyler HD, Villanueva B, Woolliams JA (2008) Accuracy of predicting the genetic risk of disease using a genome-wide approach. PLoS ONE 3:e3395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Daetwyler HD, Pong-Wong R, Villanueva B, Woolliams JA (2010) The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 1031:1021–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Endelman JB (2011) Ridge regression and other kernels for genomic selection with R package rrBLUP. Plant Genome 4:250–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Endelman JB, Atlin GN, Beyene Y, Semagn K, Zhang X, Sorrells ME, Jannink J (2014) Optimal design of preliminary yield trials with genome-wide markers. Crop Sci 54:48–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heffner EL, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME (2011) Genomic selection accuracy using multifamily prediction models in a wheat breeding program. Plant Genome 4:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heslot N, Yang HP, Sorrells ME, Jannink JL (2012) Genomic selection in plant breeding: a comparison of models. Crop Sci 52:146–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hickey JM, Dreisigacker S, Crossa J, Hearne S, Babu R, Prasanna BM, Grondona M, Zambelli A, Windhausen VS, Mathews K, Gorjanc G (2014) Evaluation of genomic selection training population designs and genotyping strategies in plant breeding programs using simulation. Crop Sci 54:1476–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacobson A, Lian L, Zhong S, Bernardo R (2014) General combining ability model for genomewide selection in a biparental cross. Crop Sci 54:895–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobson A, Lian L, Zhong S, Bernardo R (2015a) Marker imputation before genomewide selection in biparental maize populations. Plant Genome 8:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jacobson A, Lian L, Zhong S, Bernardo R (2015b) Minimal loss of genetic diversity after genomewide selection within biparental maize populations. Crop Sci 55:783–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lian L, Jacobson A, Zhong S, Bernardo R (2014) Genomewide prediction accuracy within 969 maize biparental populations. Crop Sci 54:1514–1522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lorenz AJ, Smith KP (2015) Adding genetically distant individuals to training populations reduces genomic prediction accuracy in barley. Crop Sci 55:2657–2667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lorenzana RE, Bernardo R (2009) Accuracy of genotypic value predictions for marker-based selection in biparental plant populations. Theor Appl Genet 120:151–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lynch M (1988) Estimation of relatedness by DNA fingerprinting. Mol Biol Evol 5:584–599Google Scholar
  19. Parra JR, Hallauer AR (1996) Utilization of exotic maize germplasm. In: Janick J (ed) Plant breeding reviews, vol 14. Wiley, Oxford, pp 165–187Google Scholar
  20. Phillips RL (2010) Mobilizing science to break yield barriers. Crop Sci 50:S-99–S-108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Riedelsheimer C, Technow F, Melchinger AE (2012) Comparison of whole-genome prediction models for traits with contrasting genetic architecture in a diversity panel of maize inbred lines. BMC Genom 13:452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Riedelsheimer C, Endelman JB, Stange M, Sorrells ME, Jannink J-L, Melchinger AE (2013) Genomic predictability of interconnected biparental maize populations. Genetics 194:493–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schulz-Streeck T, Ogutu JO, Karaman Z, Knaak C, Piepho HP (2012) Genomic selection using multiple populations. Crop Sci 52:2453–2461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sokal RR, Michener CD (1958) A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. Univ Kansas Sci Bull 38:1409–1438Google Scholar
  25. R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agronomy and Plant GeneticsUniversity of MinnesotaSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations