, 215:76 | Cite as

Comparison of genome-wide and phenotypic selection indices in maize

  • Gustavo Vitti MôroEmail author
  • Mateus Figueiredo Santos
  • Cláudio Lopes de Souza Júnior


The objective of this study was to compare the selection of maize lines by genomic selection and phenotypic selection, performed on the basis of selection indices rather than on each trait separately. To achieve this, 256 plants of an F2 population (S1 lines) were genotyped with 177 microsatellite molecular markers. These lines were evaluated in experiments with replications, considering different traits, phenotypic means (PM) and means predicted from the effects of the molecular markers (GM) were obtained and, from these, different selection indices were estimated for each line. The results showed that the GM were estimated with good precision, with high estimates for correlations, coefficients of determination and accuracy between the GM and the PM. The estimates of the correlation coefficients varied from medium to high between the selection indices obtained from PM and GM, with PM and GM generated values showing the closest agreement for the index proposed by Mulamba and Mock. The occurrence of superior genotype coincidences was not high between PM and GM based selections for the different selection indices, but values close to the observed phenotypic values were found. The evaluation of the populations selection for the different strategies confirmed that there were differences among the selection indices used for both PM and GM for most of the traits evaluated, that in average their means did not differ for most of the traits, and both differed from the control population, confirming the efficiency of the genomic selection performed on the basis of selection indices.


Zea mays L. Response to selection Correlation Marker assisted selection Efficiency 



Funding was provided by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico.


  1. Albrecht T, Wimmer V, Auinger HJ, Erbe M, Knaak C, Ouzunova M, Simianer H, Schon CC (2011) Genome-based prediction of testcross values in maize. Theor Appl Genet 123:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allaire FR, Henderson CR (1966) Selection practiced among dairy cows: II. Total production over a sequence of lactations. J Dairy Sci 49:1435–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asoro FG, Newell MA, Beavis WD, Scott MP, Jannink JL (2011) Accuracy and training population design for genomic selection on quantitative traits in elite North American oats. Plant Gen 4:132–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker RJ (1986) Selection indices in plant breeding. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  5. Belícuas PR, Aguiar AM, Bento DAV, Câmara TMM, Souza Júnior CL (2014) Inheritance of the stay-green trait in tropical maize. Euphytica 198:163–173Google Scholar
  6. Bernardo R (1996a) Best linear unbiased prediction of maize single-cross performance. Crop Sci 36:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernardo R (1996b) Best linear unbiased prediction of maize single-cross performance given erroneous inbred relationships. Crop Sci 36:862–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernardo R (2008) Molecular markers and selection for complex traits in plants: learning from the last 20 years. Crop Sci 48:1649–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernardo R (2009) Genome wide selection for rapid introgression of exotic germplasm in maize. Crop Sci 49:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernardo R (2010) Breeding for quantitative traits in plants. Stemma Press, WoodburyGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernardo R, Yu J (2007) Prospects for genome wide selection for quantitative traits in maize. Crop Sci 47:1082–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bouchez A, Hospital F, Causse M, Gallais A, Charcosset A (2002) Marker-assisted introgression of favorable alelles at quantitative trait loci between maize elite lines. Genetics 162:1945–1959PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Burdick RK, Graybill FA (1992) Confidence intervals on variance components. M. Dekker Inc., New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Câmara TMM, Bento DAV, Alves GF, Santos MF, Moreira JUV, Souza Júnior CL (2007) Parâmetros Genéticos Relacionados à Tolerância à Deficiência Hídrica em Milho Tropical. Bragantia 66:595–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dickerson GE, Blunn CT, Chapman AG, Kottman RM, Kridder JL, Warwick EJ, Whatley JA Jr, Baker ML, Winters LM (1954) Evaluation of developing inbred lines of swine. Res Bull Mol Agric Exp Stn: 551Google Scholar
  16. Eathington SR, Crosbie TM, Edwards MD, Reiter RS, Bull JK (2007) Molecular markers in a commercial breeding program. Crop Sci 47(Suppl3):S-154–S-163Google Scholar
  17. Gouy M, Rousselle Y, Bastianelli D, Lecomte P, Bonnal L, Roques D, Efile JC, Rocher S, Daugrois J, Toubi L, Nabeneza S, Hervouet C, Telismart H, Denis M, Thong Chane A, Glaszmann JC, Hoarau JY, Nibouche S, Costet L (2013) Experimental assessment of the accuracy of genomic selection in sugarcane. Theor Appl Genet 126:2575–2586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guo Z, Tucker DM, Lu J, Kishore V, Gay G (2012) Evaluation of genome-wide selection efficiency in maize nested association mapping populations. Theor Appl Genet 124:261–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hallauer AR, Carena MJ, Miranda Filho JB (2010) Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Hazel LN (1943) The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics 28:476–490PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Heffner EL, Jannink J, Sorrells ME (2011) Genomic selection accuracy using multifamily prediction models in a wheat breeding program. Plant Genome 4:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henderson CR (1984) Applications of linear models in animal breeding. University of Guelph, GuelphGoogle Scholar
  23. Ho J, McCouch S, Smith M (2002) Improvement of hybrid yield by advanced backcross QTL analysis in elite maize. Theor Appl Genet 105:440–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Iwata H, Jannink JL (2011) Accuracy of genomic selection prediction in barley breeding programs: a simulation study based on the real single nucleotide polymorphism data of barley breeding lines. Crop Sci 51:1915–1927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jacobson A, Lian L, Zhong S, Bernardo R (2014) General combining ability model for genome wide selection in a biparental cross. Crop Sci 54:895–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lima MLA, Souza Júnior CL, Bento DAV, Souza AP, Garcia LAC (2006) Mapping QTL for grain yield and plant traits in a tropical maize population. Mol Breed 17:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Massman JM, Jung H-JG, Bernardo R (2013) Genomewide selection versus marker-assisted recurrent selection to improve grain yield and stover-quality traits for cellulosic ethanol in maize. Crop Sci 53:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mendes MP, Souza Júnior CL (2016) Genome wide prediction of tropical maize single-crosses. Euphytica 209:651–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meuwissen THE (2007) Genomic selection: marker assisted selection on genome-wide scale. J Anim Breed Genet 124:321–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME (2001) Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 157:1819–1829PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Moreau L, Charcosset A, Gallais A (2004) Experimental evaluation of several cycles of marker assisted selection in maize. Euphytica 137:111–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Môro GV, Santos MF, Bento DAV, Aguiar AM, Souza CL Jr (2012) Genetic analysis of kernel oil content in tropical maize with design III and QTL mapping. Euphytica 185:419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mulamba NN, Mock JJ (1978) Improvement of yield potential of the Eto Blanco maize (Zea mays L.) population by breeding for plant traits. Egypt J Genet Cytol 7:40–51Google Scholar
  35. Peng B, Li Y, Wang Y, Liu C, Liu Z, Zhang Y, Tan W, Wang D, Shi Y, Sun B, Song Y, Wang T, Li Y (2013) Correlations and comparisons of quantitative trait loci with family per se and testcross performance for grain yield and related traits in maize. Theor Appl Genet 126:773–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pesek J, Baker RJ (1969) Desired improvement in relation to selection indices. Can J Plant Sci 49:803–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. SAS Institute Inc (2001) SAS/STAT user’s guide, v.6.03. SAS Institute, CaryGoogle Scholar
  38. Sibov ST, Souza CL Jr, Garcia AAF, Silva AR, Mangolin CA, Benchimol LL, Souza AP (2003) Molecular mapping in tropical maize using microsatellite markers. 2. Quantitative trait loci (QTL) for grain yield, ear height, and grain moisture. Hereditas 139:107–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith HF (1936) A discriminant function for plant selection. Ann Eugen 7:240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smith OS, Hallauer AR, Russell WA (1981) Use of index selection in recurrent selection programs in maize. Euphytica 30:611–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1995) Biometry—the principles and practice of statistics in biological research. W. H. Freeman & Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Stuber CW, Sisco P (1992) Marker-facilitated transfer of QTL alleles between inbred lines and responses in hybrids. In: Proceedings of 46th annual Corn and Sorghum industry research conference. ASTA, Washington, pp 104–113Google Scholar
  43. Veldboom LR, Lee M (1994) Molecular-marker facilited studies of morphological traits in maize. II: determination of QTL for grain yield and yield components. Theor Appl Genet 89:451–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams JS (1962) The evaluation of a selection index. Biometrics 18:375–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wolf DP, Peternelli LA, Hallauer AR (2000) Estimates of genetic variance in an F2 maize population. J Hered 91:384–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wong CK, Bernardo R (2008) Genomewide selection in oil palm: increasing selection gain per unit time and cost with small populations. Theor Appl Genet 116:815–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Production, School of Agricultural and Veterinarian SciencesSão Paulo State University (Unesp)JaboticabalBrazil
  2. 2.Plant Research GroupEmbrapa Beef CattleCampo GrandeBrazil
  3. 3.Department of GeneticsUniversity of São PauloPiracicabaBrazil

Personalised recommendations