Molecular Breeding

, 37:51 | Cite as

Genome-wide prediction for maize single-cross hybrids using the GBLUP model and validation in different crop seasons

  • Narjara Fonseca Cantelmo
  • Renzo Garcia Von Pinho
  • Marcio BalestreEmail author


The aim of this study was to perform genome-wide selection using a set of Dart-seq markers associated to the additive-dominant genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) model to predict maize grain yield in different crop seasons and locations. Genotyping was performed with Dart-seq markers from 447 lines coming from a germplasm bank of a private maize breeding company. Crossing these lines provided 838 single-cross hybrids evaluated in six locations in the winter crop season of 2013 and 797 single-cross hybrids evaluated in four locations in the summer crop season of 2013/2014. Four k-fold levels were applied on the full panel of 23,153 Dart genotyping-by-sequencing markers and samples of 50% of the available markers. The different crop seasons were used as training and validation populations to estimate the predictive accuracy. The magnitude of the correlations between predicted and observed hybrids ranged from 0.82 to 0.89 in the winter crop season and from 0.56 to 0.76 in the summer crop season. The correlations between combinations tested in different crop seasons and locations were encouraging (0.53). Predictive ability was highly influenced by the genetic background and also by the interaction between crop seasons. The coincidences between the genomic values of the summer crop and winter crop, in terms of discard, were 89 and 90%. This result shows the possibility of using genomic prediction in breeding programs for initial discard of low-yielding genotypes. The GBLUP method was able to generate high correlations between predicted and observed hybrids, even at high levels of missing in k-fold and in different locations and crop seasons.


Plant breeding Dart markers GBLUP GWS Genomic prediction 

Supplementary material

11032_2017_651_MOESM1_ESM.r (5 kb)
ESM 1 (R 4 kb)
11032_2017_651_MOESM2_ESM.rar (2.2 mb)
ESM 2 (RAR 2256 kb)


  1. Albrecht T et al (2011) Genome-based prediction of testcross values in maize. Theorical Applied Genetics 123:339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht T et al (2014) Genome-based prediction of maize hybrid performance across genetic groups, testers, locations, and years. Theorical Applied Genetics. 127:1375–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asoro FG et al (2011) Accuracy and training population design for genomic selection on quantitative traits in elite North American oats. The Plant Genome 4(n. 2):132–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernardo R (1995) Genetic models for predicting maize performance in unbalanced yield trial data. Crop Sci 35:141–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernardo R (1996a) Best linear unbiased prediction of maize single cross performance. Crop Sci 36:50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernardo R (1996b) Best linear unbiased prediction of maize single-cross performance given erroneous inbred relationships. Crop Sci 36:862–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernardo R (1994) Prediction of maize single-cross performance using RFLPs and information from related hybrids. Crop Sci 34:20–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernardo R, Yu J (2007) Prospects for genomewide selection for quantitative traits in maize. Crop Sci 47:1082–1090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burgueño J et al (2011) Prediction assessment of linear mixed models for multienvironment trials. Crop Scienc 51:944–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calus MPL (2010) Genomic breeding value prediction: methods and procedures. Animal 4:157–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cantelmo NF, Von Pinho RG, Balestre M (2016) Genomic breeding value prediction for simple maize hybrid yield using total effects of associated markers, under different imbalance levels and environments. Genet Mol Res 15. doi: 10.4238/gmr.15017232
  12. Cockerham CC (1954) An extension of the concept of partitioning hereditary variance for analysis of covariances among relatives when epistasis is present. Genetics 39:859–882PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Combs E, Bernardo R (2013) Accuracy of genomewide selection for different traits with constant population size, heritability, and number of markers. The Plant Genome. 6:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crossa J et al (2010) Predictions of genetic values of quantitative traits in plant breeding using pedigree and molecular markers. Genetics 186:713–724CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Crossa J et al (2013) Genomic prediction in maize breeding populations with genotyping-by-sequencing. G3 3:1903–1926CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Endelman JB (2011) Ridge regression and other kernels for genomic selection with R package rrBLUP. The Plant Genome 4:250–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gowda M et al (2013) Best linear unbiased prediction of triticale hybrid performance. Euphytica 191:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guo T et al (2014) Genetic basis of grain yield heterosis in an “immortalized F2” maize population. Theor Appl Genet 127:2149–2158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Guo T et al (2013a) Performance prediction of F1 hybrids between recombinant inbred lines derived from two elite maize inbred lines. Theorical Applied Genetics. 126:189–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guo Z et al (2013b) Accuracy of across-environment genome-wide prediction in maize nested association mapping populations. G3 3:263–272CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM (2007) The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values. Genetics 177:2389–2397PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Hallauer AR, Carena M, Miranda JBF. (2010) Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. 3rd ed. Ames: Iowa State University.Google Scholar
  23. Hamblin J, Morton JR (1977) Genetic interpretations of the effects of bulk breeding on four populations of beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Euphytica 26:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hayes BJ et al (2009b) Invited review: genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. J Dairy Sci 92:433–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hayes BJ, Visscher PM, Goddard ME (2009a) Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix. Genet Res 91:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heslot N, Jannink JL, Sorrells ME (2014) Perspectives for genomic selection applications and research in plants. Crop Sci 55:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang YF et al (2010) The genetic architecteture of grain yield and related traits in Zea maize L. revealed by comparing intermated and conventional populations. Genetics 186:395–404CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Jannink JL, Lorenz AJ, Iwata H (2010) Genomic selection in plant breeding: from theory to practice. Briefings in Functional Genomics 9:166–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lado B, Barrios PG, Quincke M et al (2016) Modeling genotype by environment interaction for genomic selection with unbalanced data from a wheat breeding program. Crop Sci 56:2165–2179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Massman JM et al (2013) Genome wide predictions from maize single-cross data. Theorical Applied Genetics. 126:13–22CrossRefGoogle 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. Nishio M, Satoh M (2014) Including dominance effects in the genomic BLUP method for genomic evaluation. PLoS One 9:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Romay, M. C. et al. (2013). Comprehensive genotyping of the USA national maize inbred seed bank. Genome Biology, 1–18.Google Scholar
  34. Santos JPR, Vasconcellos RCC, Pires LPM, Balestre M, Von Pinho RG (2016) Inclusion of dominance effects in the multivariate GBLUP model. PLoS One 11:e0152045CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Schön CC et al (2004) Quantitative trait locus mapping based on resampling in a vast maize testcross experiment and its relevance to quantitative genetics for complex traits. Genetics 167:485–498CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Schrag TA et al (2010) Prediction of hybrid performance in maize using molecular markers and joint analyses of hybrids and parental inbreds. Theorical Applied Genetics 120:451–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stuber CW, Edwards MD, Wendel JF (1987) Molecular marker-facilitated investigations of quantitative trait loci in maize. II. Factors influencing yield and its component traits. Crop Science 27:639–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Technow F et al (2014) Genome properties and prospects of genomic prediction of hybrid performance in a breeding program of maize. Genetics 114:1–42Google Scholar
  39. Technow F, Bürger A, Melchinger AE (2013) Genomic prediction of northern corn leaf blight resistance in maize with combined or separated training sets for heterotic groups. G3 3:197–203CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Technow F, Riedelsheimer C, Schrag TA, Melchinger AE (2012) Genomic prediction of hybrid performance in maize with models incorporating dominance and population specific marker effects. Theor Appl Genet 125:1181–1194. doi: 10.1007/s00122-012-1905-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Troyer AF, Wellin EJ (2009) Heterosis decreasing in hybrids: yield test Inbreds. Crop Sci 49:1969–1976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. VanRaden PM et al (2009) Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci 92:16–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. VanRaden PM (2008) Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci 91:4414–4423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Visscher PM, Hill WG, Wray NR (2008) Heritability in the genomics era—concepts and misconceptions. Nat Rev Genet 91:255–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vitezica ZG, Varona L, Legarra A (2013) On the additive and dominant variance and covariance of individuals within the genomic selection scope. Genetics 195:1223–1230CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Wang Y et al (2014) The accuracy of prediction of genomic selection in elite hybrid rye populations surpasses the accuracy of marker-assisted selection and is equally augmented by multiple field evaluation locations and test years. BMC Genomics 15:556CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Windhausen VS et al (2012) Effectiveness of genomic prediction of maize hybrid performance in different breeding populations and. Environments G3 2:1427–1436PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Wong C, Bernardo R (2008) Genomewide selection in oil palm: increasing selection gain per unit time and cost with small populations. Theorical Applied Genetics, Berlin 116:815–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Xua S, Zhub D, Zhang Q (2014) Predicting hybrid performance in rice using genomic best linear unbiased prediction. PNAS 111:12456–12461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zeng ZB, Wang T, Zou W (2005) Modeling quantitative trait loci and interpretation of models. Genetics 169:1711–1725CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhao Y, Mette MF, Reif JC (2015) Genomic selection in hybrid breeding. Plant Breed 134:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhong S et al (2009) Factors affecting accuracy from genomic selection in populations derived from multiple inbred lines: a barley case study. Genetics 182:355–364CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Narjara Fonseca Cantelmo
    • 1
  • Renzo Garcia Von Pinho
    • 1
  • Marcio Balestre
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Departamento de AgriculturaUniversidade Federal de LavrasLavrasBrazil
  2. 2.Departamento de EstatísticaUniversidade Federal de LavrasLavrasBrazil

Personalised recommendations